To answer Nicole's question, yes, I support marriage equality and the California Supreme Court's May 15 decision on the issue. Jumping to the chase, I'm very supportive because they directly led to my ability on June 18 to create a union recognized by the state of California with the man I want to spend the rest of my life with.

My opinion on the issue comes after many years of personal observation and reflection, and was not a direct or easy path. After too many years of dealing professionally with the failures of marriage, first in my security work for the State Department and later working on family law issues as an attorney, I honestly wondered why anyone would want to participate in the archaic institution. 

Starting in law school though, for the first time I thought about the philosophy and history of marriage. I would still question marriage in the Anglo tradition: the concepts of a wife giving a unilateral promise of obedience to her husband, and fathers giving their daughters away as though they were property is insulting and degrading. I did come to appreciate the history and philosophical approach behind community property though, an approach to marriage dating back to ancient Spanish law.

The philosophy is easily shown by looking at the 15th century marriage of King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella, a union the resulted in the unification of Spain as one county under their grandson: marriage is a union of two equals who have decided to share everything forever. In my mind this was the correct approach to marriage and how I wanted to spend my life - part of a union based on mutual respect and equal standing.

My time in law school, after two overseas tours and spending four out of five years out of the country, was also when I began to realize just how much modern America had let big government intrude into people's lives with incentives and penalties all hinging on acceptance of one family model as being the only acceptable family unit. 

Don't fit their model? Pay more and get less. Regardless of personal beliefs or circumstances, legislative majorities will attempt to obtain conformity with their personal choices, and the constitution, whether the federal one or that of the various states, may end up being the only defense against that tyranny of the majority.

Despite knowing history, for a while I held a hope that the various almost-but-not-marriage proposals would at least minimize the damage caused by myopic politicians trying to have their cake and eat it too. I should have known better. One lesson of history that should be undeniable at this point in American society is that separate but equal will never be.

Despite that fact, essentially separate but equal proposals continue to appear whenever full marriage rights get close to reality. Call them red herrings or consolation prizes, shiny decoys or whatever, but not marriage and not marriage-equivalents, because they aren't.

Those both for and against marriage equality acknowledge that marriage is a powerful word with very significant connotations. Those connotations are exactly the reason that anything but marriage for homosexual couples is doomed to fall short. Husband, wife and spouse are crystal clear in their meanings. Partner has other connotations, and its occasional use in my life the last two years has generally resulted in confusion and misunderstandings. Even here at KPBS my initial tagline left it unclear whether I was in a committed relationship or practicing law in a small firm.

Emergency room visits, road trips and customer service calls over those same two years have also proven to me both the futility and false equality of using documents like advanced health care directives and powers of attorney in place of the official institution of marriage. While both have their purposes, the upfront costs and planning requirements immediately disprove any illusion of equality. The logistical requirement to constantly possess important legal documents on your person does nothing but cause me to relive some of my worst third world moments in the Foreign Service. 

The constant effort to educate customer service personnel on your legal rights as a partner, domesticant or unionist (depending on the alternative scheme of non-marriage in place) is quite simply an assault on the dignity of the other-than-married couple, especially when you consider that words with crystal clear meanings (marriage, husband, wife) to describe the same rights, duties and obligations are available.

Now that I am here, having traversed that journey, I can't see any option but full marriage equality as acceptable. All the lesser options have been tried and failed, and the constitutional protections for equal treatment under the law require nothing less. Yes, as wonderfully described by the California Supreme Court on May 15, constitutional protections.  Whether affirmative action will be required to correct the years of inequitable treatment remains to be seen. Just kidding. Maybe.

At this point I have to point out the complete lack of legal understanding embraced in 'will of the people' argument that's been floating around since the Supreme Court's decision was announced. One of the jobs of the court is to reconcile conflicting laws. The argument that eight years ago the people passed a law and that vote should be forever inviolate even if the law conflicts with the state constitution is patently absurd. 

The law was passed in 2000, legal challenges arising from 2004 cases finally made their way through the system, and in 2008 the law was found to be quite simply and clearly unconstitutional.

While acknowledging that I support marriage equality first and foremost because it's good for me and the man who, as of June 18, is my husband, I think it's also good for California.  

I am a native Californian and proud to call this state home. I'm proud of it because it is generally filled with forward-thinking people who push the state, and then the country, and then the world, forward in so many areas: science, culture, the arts, and yes, civil rights. Despite that positive outlook, I have to say I'm very disappointed that some of my fellow Californians want to hold us back with views that I'm certain future history texts will describe alongside the civil rights obstructionists of the mid and late 20th century, as the latter day equivalents of a small town southern sheriff unleashing his hounds in a futile effort to stop time from moving forward.

At about this point, some are probably wondering 'wait - isn't this guy a republican?'  Yes, I am and obviously I disagree with the national Republican party on this and many other issues, particularly for the last eight years.  I did vote for Gov. Schwarzenegger and Mayor Jerry Sanders (when I still lived in San Diego) and believe that many California Republicans are open-minded individuals who respect the traditional conservative political values of a minimal, efficient government and individual responsibility without embracing that distinctly un-Californian philosophy of mandating social values and fueling a lust for political power with theological arrogance.

As for the work environment, I work from home and my puppy accepts me for who I am, and I don't anticipate any problems in the workplace as long as I don't confuse any law practice clients by using an ambiguous word like 'partner' when a clear one like 'husband' would suffice. And I never intend to.

-Citizen Voices blogger Chuck Hartley is an attorney who lives in Escondido.