+

-

An image from Gay Pride 2011 in Long Beach along Ocean Boulevard. 

8:00am | Perhaps you're upset that yesterday the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals found Proposition 8 to be unconstitutional.  If

ADVERTISEMENT

so, that makes you Scarlet and me Rhett -- because frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn. 

That may be a terribly ungracious sentiment to express in victory (it's no less a victory for those of us who happen to be attracted to the opposite sex), but what can I tell ya? I'm completely unsympathetic to the cause of institutionalizing inequality.  

That's really all Proposition 8 was about: OUR unions deserve the sanctity of law, but YOURS don't. To quote from yesterday's decision: "Proposition 8 serves no purpose, and has no effect, other than to lessen the status and human dignity of gays and lesbians in California, and to officially reclassify their relationships and families as inferior to those of opposite-sex couples." 

The willingness to enact such a patently unjust law stems from a simple bias: OUR way of loving is better (worth more, more deserving, etc.) than YOURS.  

That is a belief. I disagree with it, but I don't mind disagreement. You believe homosexuality is wrong/unnatural/sinful? Whatever. I don't even mind if you want to belong to a church that doesn't sanctify same-sex marriage. I might have an urge to tell you to pull your head out of the Dark Ages, but hey, your faith is none of my business. 

My state constitution, though, is very much my business. Yours, too -- but not your religion's. "Free exercise and enjoyment of religion without discrimination or preference are guaranteed," says Article 1, Section 4 (emphasis added). Believe as you will, but don't ask the government to prefer your religion. 

I'm perfectly aware that religion has nothing to do with the constitutional arguments made in court. Nonetheless, the "Yes" campaign was manned by people who look at the GLBT community and think, "My union is holier than thous." Look at who bankrolled the whole shebang: the Mormon Church, the Catholic Church, etc. You'll notice there was no Buddhist-Agnostic Righteous Front Against Same-sex Marriage (BARFASM) or Sikh and Taoist United Protectors from Intersexual Decline (STUPID). Like it or not, much of the homophobia in the Western World has its roots in Leviticus, which, in no uncertain terms, calls for homosexuals to be put to death.  

Thankfully, very few of the "Yes on 8" people want the laws of Leviticus carried out to the letter. And as handy as it is for the "No" side that "eight" rhymes with "hate," I do not believe that the majority of "Yes" votes were grounded in antipathy. Prejudice? You betcha. Fear? Sure. Ignorance? Okay. 

But hatred? Hatred is what the Ottoman had for the Armenian, the Nazi for the Jew, the Hutu for the Tutsi. The average "Yes on 8" peep just ("just") wanted to deprive marriage rights to the 10% or so of our population who might happen to fall in love with someone of the same gender. 

That's not necessarily hatred, but it sure is discriminatory, and that's exactly what laws are not supposed to do: discriminate between individuals, favor one group over another. We're all supposed to get the same treatment under the law, the same rights and protections. That is the California Constitution's raison d'être. 

Yes, I know the argument: Proposition 8 was put forward not as an attack on the GLBT community, but as a defense of marriage. Problem is, no one's demonstrated just how same-sex marriage damages marriage. If it does, California is the perfect place to prove it, since same-sex marriages were performed here between June 16 and November 5, 2008, and remained valid even after Proposition 8 went into effect. Can somebody show me how opposite-sex marriage has been weakened here? Does California soil or society sap the conjugal force between husband and wife because the ground has been desecrated by (gasp) marital unions of man-man and woman-woman? If I'm ever lucky enough to wed, should I hop over to Vegas to hedge my bets, since the Golden State hasn't properly protected the institution? Or hey, do I safeguard matrimonial bliss better yet if I move to Uganda? I mean, you can't protect opposite-sex marriage any more strongly from the same-sex menace than by making homosexuality a capital offense, right? 

Yes, I'm being silly. That's the point. The logic of the "defense of marriage" argument is silly. Prejudice always bears the unmistakable hallmark of being logically silly. 

But even if it weren't, as a practical matter, it's outmoded, and society is moving on. As recently as 46 years ago many states banned interracial marriage. But the old dogs died off or learned new tricks, and the youth came of age and proved far wiser -- or at least more progressive -- on this question. And while there are still plenty of people around the country who believe white goes only with white and black with black, "anti-miscegenation" laws have been swept into the dustbin of our history -- exactly the same place "defense of marriage" laws are heading.  

Don't believe me? Peek inside and see what's on top: 

        Article 1, Sec. 7.5. Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California. 

Now kiss it goodbye, and never look back. Live and let live; love and let love. Marriage will take care of itself. 

Comments

Click Here to Join the Discussion on this Story

8 Comments so far.

Display Name :
E-mail Address :
Comment :