…because I will vote Yes on California Proposition 8, which will add the line “only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California” to the state constitution.
This little ballot measure is probably the one being most noisily debated both in the state and outside it. Proponents are saying it will make sure the sanctity of marriage goes unadulterated and that traditional families will continue to be represented and blah blah, and opponents are saying that it’s an attempt to institutionalize bigotry and deny homosexual couples equal rights afforded to heterosexual couples and blah blah - you’ve heard all the arguments before. But I’m afraid in all the blather between the two sides, the true issue at stake with this proposition is being dismissed or ignored. And that issue is not gay marriage, no matter how much both sides think it should be.
Let’s back up a little. In 2000, little ol’ liberal California passed Proposition 22, which legally defined marriage as a heterosexual union, thus giving California its first codified definition of marriage in its history (up until that point, it being heterosexual was just assumed). The margin was significant; over 61% voted in favor of it. Thus, only heterosexual couples could marry in California.
However, earlier this year, some cases made it to the California Supreme Court which challenged the constitutionality of the law. After reviewing the case, the Court released a 4/3 split decision which invalidated Proposition 22.
Something which over four and a half million people from all over California voted into law was invalidated by four fogies in robes sitting in an air-conditioned room sipping filtered icewater with lemon slices. The same liberals who chant and march for democracy and enfranchisement have a habit of falling eerily silent when the actual enforcement of those ideals would lead to an unfavorable outcome.
Now don’t get me wrong; I understand the whole checks and balances thing. And I think it’s generally a good idea. But this law was not created by some interminable dangerous legislative sect or some out-of-control executive. This law came into being by the vote of the people; the people these judges are supposed to be working for. What was the point of having a vote on it if the legislative branch were just going to decide the issue for us anyway? Millions of Californians - whether they voted for or against it - were disenfranchised after the court decided to invalidate the vote and write their own rules.
And that’s the real issue. Not gay marriage. The decision of the court effectively legalized gay marriage in California, and for the last few months, gays have been marrying in California, filling out forms labeled with “Party A” and “Party B” instead of “Woman” and “Man.” During that time, there has not, to the best of my knowledge, been a measurable increase in the number of human lightning strikes or plagues of locusts. The state has not been torn off of the continent and sunk into the Pacific. And just on a personal level, I’m really not bothered that much by the thought of gays marrying. It’s certainly… different, yes, but I can’t imagine any scenarios by which my life has been or will be negatively affected by it.
The real issue is that the courts overruled the will of the people. Proposition 8 is a vote on whether we’re going to allow them to get away with it or not.
The primary difference between Props 8 and 22 is that 8 will make heterosexual marriage a part of the California constitution, whereas 22 simply made it a normal law. Constitutional amendments cannot, to the best of my knowledge, be revoked by the courts by any other manner than the passage of anotherr constitutional amendment which strikes it out. A vote of no on 8 sets a dangerous precedent; it tells the court that the people of California are just fine with a small group of people in Sacramento overriding their votes and elections. It’s purely by chance, and somewhat unfortunate, that the issue with which this has all come to a head is gay marriage.
If this were a proposition to add language to the constitution explicitly permitting gay marriage, I wouldn’t have a problem with it. Nor would I stress too much if Prop 8 passed, then another proposition invalidating it passed in the very next election. As I said, the real issue here is whether we’re going to permit the courts to disenfranchise us. However, since the incidental issue to all this is the legal status of gay marriage, those who favor 8 are doomed to become bigoted homophobic fascists - like me. But hold on to your hats; I’m about to share my personal opinion on marriage and government which might just flip your lid.
The recognizance of one’s marital status at either the federal or state level is extraconstitutional. By that I mean that there is no language in the US constitution which says that tracking whether and to who (sorry, I refuse to use the word “whom” anymore) people are married, and, at least for now, there’s none in the California constitution either, as far as I know. So the government should not keep track of it. Extend all benefits and tax breaks that married people receive to everyone. Peoples’ marriage status should stop having any relevance to their standing with the government at all.
That way, marriage becomes purely a social issue. If a man and a woman, a man and a man, a woman and a woman, two men and five women, or a banana slug and a narwhal want to get together at their local church, community center, park, graveyard, or coral reef and exchange some ceremonial vow of fidelity, and they want to call this ceremony a “marriage” and refer to themselves as “married,” then so be it. The government doesn’t need to - the government shouldn’t - be involved. Man, how fascist is that?
