The 4-3 ruling declared that the state Constitution protects a fundamental
'right to marry' that extends equally to same-sex couples.The majority opinion, by Chief Justice Ronald M. George, declared that any law that
discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation will from this point on be
constitutionally suspect in California in the same way as laws that discriminate
by race or gender, making the state's high court the first in the nation to
adopt such a stringent standard.
Those who read my blog regularly will recall that I was elated by this news, both as a gay rights activist and an amateur legal scholar. You see, it's times like these that you can rest assured that our system of checks and balances is working: it is the judicial branch's (sometimes unpopular) job to protect minority groups from the whim of the majority. When the California Supreme Court struck down a ban on interracial marriage sixty years ago, it was an incredibly unpopular decision (90% of Americans opposed interracial marriage), but one we now recognize as correct.
So what's so wrong with a ban on gay marriage (44 states have such laws)? I'd like to know what's right with them. Here are a couple of points:
Victimless crime, or society at risk?
An anonymous quote that I love goes like this: "A great law protects me from the government. The Bill of Rights has 10 GREAT laws. A good law protects me from you. Laws against murder, theft, assault and the like are good laws. A poor law attempts to protect me from myself."
A ban on gay marriage does not protect me from my government, nor does it protect me from you. Now, gay marriage opponents will argue that we're not trying to protect people from each other, we're trying to protect society from a fundamental change in the definition of marriage.
This is a load of crap.
I keep hearing quotes from anti-gay groups in California justifying the now illegal ban by saying marriage has always been an intersexual affair (tell that to Massachusetts, Canada, Belgium and the Netherlands). But since when is that a good argument for anything? If we could travel through time, I'm sure we'd hear people saying, "But it's always been illegal for Blacks to marry Whites," "But we've always had slaves," "But women have never been allowed to vote," and so forth.
Gay marriage will not hurt society or the "institution of marriage." If marriage can survive Vegas, I don't think a couple of dudes walking down the aisle is going to cause marriage certificates to spontaneously combust. And arguing that heterosexual marriages are cheapened by gay marriage is just plain stupid (unless the temptation suddenly becomes just too much). It's been legal is Massachusetts for years, and that state's still there. I guess God's been too busy to go all Sodom and Gomorrah on their ass, what with punishing the sin fest that is New Orleans and all.
Which brings me to my other point...
God said don't be queer.
I won't go into all the things that are wrong with this theology, because it's completely irrelevant. Fortunately for those of us who still like our communion wine (or those of us who prefer not to eat our savior), the United States is not a theocracy, much less a nation founded on the strictest principles of fundamentalist Christianity. In short, what God said (or didn't say) should have no bearing on a country who holds in the higest import the freedom of religion. It is essential to a free society that we base our law not on religious code alone, but on an extrareligious examination of the consequences of our laws and the freedoms we hold dear.
A Christian attitude
Finally, I have to say that I don't think it's particularly Christian of us to focus so much effort on trying to enforce a personal ethic. To quote one of my favorite Facebook groups that I'm not a member of, "Don't like gay marriage? Then don't get one and shut the fuck up." (Ironically, that's not a particularly friendly attitude either, which is why I'm not a member.)
Outlawing gay marriage will not reduce homosexuality, nor will it make the people who pass the law any better. In fact, it might just get them in trouble:
“Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you (Matthew 7:12).”
In having such a law, we are only succeeding in denying a civil liberty to a group of people. But also, in vocally supporting such a law, we are turning gay and lesbian individuals away from Christianity. Sinners or not, don't we want to bring all people closer to God? Imagine what would happen if we were as hard on people about gluttony as we are about homosexuality - we'd have to cancel our ice cream socials!
Whatever God really thinks about homosexuality, we should be a little more concerned with following the examle of Jesus, and listening to what he said was important: Love God with all your heart, and love your neighbor as you love yourself.
Maybe we should save this whole condemning homosexuality thing until we can just get that part right.
Amending the Constitution?
The fight in California isn't over.
But the scope of the court's decision could be thrown into question by anI think this takes the cake as about the shittiest move ever. The Supreme Court ruled that we can't oppress a minority group, so let's change the document they base their rulings on (non sequiter: Dad, it's okay to end a sentence with a preposition). After all, it's the only way to bypass that stupid check on majority whim.
initiative already heading toward the November ballot. The initiative would
amend the state Constitution to prohibit same-sex unions.
You know what? I support a Defense of Marriage amendment.
I think we should amend the United States Constitution to guarantee the right to marry to all people, gay and straight, everywhere in the country.
Comment away!
No comments:
Post a Comment