« Touch Nothing | Main | Stupid Award »

You Can Take My Marriage License and Shove It

If you haven't been paying attention to the gay marriage extravaganza going on in San Francisco, then you've been missing one of the most encouraging acts of civil disobedience that I can remember. Since February 12th, under order from Mayor Newsom, San Francisco has been marrying any gay couple that applies, and as such have married over 2000 couples in the last 5 days.

While California passed a ballot measure defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman, Newsom had the following to say:

"A little more than a month ago, I took the oath of office here at City Hall and swore to uphold California's Constitution, which clearly outlaws all forms of discrimination," he said on Tuesday as he asked the San Francisco County Clerk to begin issuing marriage licenses "on a non-discriminatory basis. "California's Constitution is clear, ... discrimination is immoral, it is illegal and it is antithetical to our most cherished values liberty and freedom. ... [denying gays and lesbians the right to marry] denies them more than a marriage license; it precludes millions of couples from obtaining health benefits, hospital visitation rights and pension privileges."

Imagine that--a politician who is willing to risk everything for what he believes in. Of course, his actions are likely supported by the residents in a city like San Franscisco, but it could still easily get him thrown out of office.

Contrast that with Mr. Bush, who goes off and kills thousands of innocent people, but supports a constitutional amendment that would encode discrimination against gays as a fundamental right. God forbid, those gays might want health benefits, or the right to be by their partner's side as they die!

You can really understand the thinking on this though. I mean, man/woman marriage is such a grand institution that it ensures strong families and lasting relationships, right? If gays and lesbians, who have been holding together long-lasting relationships without the benefits of state-sanctioned marriage were to all of the sudden be included into the mix, why we might find out that they're better at marriage than the heterosexuals are!

I actually wonder if this isn't one of the main motivations behind the right's determination to codify the exclusion of gays from this act. I think they are actually just plain afraid that state-sanctioned gay marriage will make "traditional" marriage look worse than it already does. It is common practice these days to have had multiple marriages while leaving a trail of children floating around between them. Add long-lasting gay marriages to the mix, and it will further highlight the failure of traditional marriage, and the ways in which these unions don't adhere to the religious values that sanction them.

Why will gay marriages last longer than traditional ones? Well, they won't all last longer, of course. But imagine having to develop and maintain a healthy long-term relationship in an environment that not only looks down upon your choice, but wants to federalize its exclusion. Now imagine the stability and calm that would come to these people were these burdens of discrimination to be lifted. They might just find it a little easier to concentrate on each other and less on the world.

And this of course brings me to the separation of church and state. Marriage is a state-sanctioned union between two people. The constitution mentions nothing about gays and lesbians one way or another. So where is this anti-gay rhetoric coming from--from the bible. Obviously there's nothing wrong with people reading and believing whats in the bible, but for the state to all of the sudden adopt a biblical criteria for marriage turns this state-sanctioned union into one controlled by religion but enforced by the state. In other words, you get a complete wipeout of the founder's insistence on this separation.

State-sanctioned marriage should be irrespective of ones religious preferences or beliefs. The question is whether or not committed gay and lesbian couples should enjoy the same benefits as everyone else--not whether this or that religion thinks it is the right thing to do.

The constitutional amendment supported by Mr. Bush is the following two sentences:

Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution or the constitution of any State, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups.

Supposedly knowledgable people disagree over whether or not this language excludes gay couples from ever receiving traditional marriage benefits. Those who want to pass it say that it will prevent judges from forcing states to recognize the gay marriage or civil union of another state, but will not prevent the states from allowing civil unions that provide traditional marriage benefits to same-sex couples. Its part of this "leave it to the state" rhetoric that you may have heard from such divergent voices as Bush and Kerry. So we want to leave it to the state, except that we won't leave it to the state because we enforce it in the federal constitution?

When I read this amendment, here is what I see:

Only hetereosexual couples can be "married" in the United States. "Married" shall include any and all unions that are called marriage, or anything that attempts to convey a similar proposition, such as "union" or "civil union." It is the absolute law of the land that nobody will be allowed to receive the benefits that married people receive if they are not married. This may include benefits such as shared health insurance, inheritance, visitation rights, and others.

While some will certainly disagree with my interpretation, many will not. I think those who try to convince us my interpretation is wrong know which way the so-called radical judges will vote--they'll uphold my reading of the amendment. Regardless of the reading, do we really want text in the constitution that states that nobody shall be required to give one group the benefits that another group has?

When I read this amendment text and read that Bush supported it, I found myself embarrassed to be a married partner in a heterosexual marriage. When I got married, it was not supported by the church (although it also wasn't opposed as far as I know)--it was supported by the state. A judge signed a certificate that proclaimed that the state sanctioned our committment, and that we were entitled to the benefits normally given to married couples. The exclusion implied in our marriage was that we had chosen to be committed to each other instead of to someone else.

Were this amendment to pass, however, my marriage would now be a supportive implementation of the discrimination I am writing against. In other words, I'm not sure that I could stay married if this amendment were to become law. I do realize that in some ways my marriage is already at least a reminder to gays and lesbians of the differences between our acceptance by society--but I am also hopeful that everyone will have the same choice I and my spouse had.

Which brings me back to San Francisco. I've been planning to write this entry ever since I read the amendment, but have been too depressed about the subject to do so. Now that thousands of gays and lesbians are lining the streets to get married, I find myself with a renewed sense of enthusiasm for the ideal of equality on this issue.

The right must surely be going nuts. What will they do--nullify the marriage licenses? Throw them in jail? Send them to Guantanamo Bay? Perhaps the only way to protect our failed institution of marriage is to ensure that it doesn't succeed.

There are many sources out there on this issue if you want to read additional perspectives. One blog that I rather enjoy and have taken to reading every day is Andrew Sullivan's Daily Dish. Andrew is a self-described fiscal conservative and cultural liberal. I don't find myself agreeing with him that often, but his writing on gay marriage is eloquent and thought-provoking. I also get to smile every time he gets angry at Bush for spending more money we don't have--because I imagine his conservative voter friends might feel the same way.

In mainstream sources, the Post had a nice article outlining the amendment issue last weekend. Nearly every source is running an article about the San Francisco marriage actions going on right now. The Times has a writeup today about the court's decision to not order an immediate halt to the marriages, but to wait for more information from the city to answer the conservative challenge.

Posted on February 17, 2004 08:46 PM

Comments

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.criticalviewer.com/mt-tb.cgi/24