The recent developments in California have captured my attention. Here we go.
photo credit: bobster1985
The facts are these:
On Feb. 12, the city of San Francisco began issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Since that time, more than 3,100 licenses have been issued.
California’s Proposition 22, passed in 2000, defines marriage as only between a man and a woman, so technically the issued licenses are illegal.
But last Thursday San Francisco challenged the law in court, claiming that the law violates constitutionally guaranteed rights, and therefore is itself illegal and void.
Two judges have so far refused to halt the issue of licenses, indicating that they see nothing illegal or threatening to civil peace about it.
Governor Schwarzenegger has called on Attorney General Bill Lockyer to prosecute the city. Lockyer will do it because it’s his job, but also claims he does not “personally support policies that give lesser legal rights and responsibilities to committed same-sex couples than those provided to heterosexual couples” (New York Times, Feb. 21).
The United States Constitution protects, among other things, the right to establish justice, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty. It says nothing about homosexuality.
The California Constitution actually uses the phrasing “the pursuing of. happiness” in its list of inalienable rights. Such a phrase will be very difficult to get around for gay marriage opponents.
The opinion: This shouldn’t be a legal matter. Unfortunately it has become one because politicians have brought religious matters and personal bias into the political arena. The recognition of civil union has begun in Vermont, and more will follow. There isn’t any legal difference between civil union and marriage in Vermont. In fact, all the rights are identical, even down to clergy being able to perform the ceremony. But marriage has a fundamentally religious connotation. Fundamentalists like President Bush want to take the issue into the legislature so as to have a “moral” nation. But the supposedly clear separation between church and state (First Amendment) theoretically forbids this action, so they try to hide their religious intent under a veil of legalese. It won’t work, ultimately. It may take some time, but relatively soon the trend begun by Vermont will spread. The issue then is whether or not the church will be able to face the fact that the biases of past generations no longer have any weight, either socially or religiously. If we are to be a truly equal society, there needs to be genuine acceptance and consideration in both religious and legislative arenas.
Personally, I think that civil union is a step too short-like telling blacks in the ’60s that they had all the rights of white people but they couldn’t use the same drinking fountains-but at least it’s a step in the right direction. Then again, I don’t have to wait for my marriage to be legal.
–
Jesse Simpson
0 responses so far ↓
There are no comments yet...Kick things off by filling out the form below.
Leave a Comment