californication
by Paige Cram
Published: May 20, 2008
California may have been the thirty-first state to join the union, but last week it became the second in an equally important national process: the legalization of same-sex marriage.
In 2004, the Massachusetts Supreme Court made history when it ruled 4-3 that the Bay State would be the first to offer equal rights to gay couples. And now, four years later, the Golden State has seized a golden opportunity to join the fight. With a ruling of the same margin, the California Supreme Court determined that the pre-existing ban on same-sex marriage was unconstitutional, making California the only other place in the United States where couples of all shapes, sizes and sexual preferences are considered equal.
These two states are leading the way, but it won’t be an easy trail to blaze. Internationally, only the Netherlands, Belgium, Spain, Canada and South Africa fully recognize same-sex marriages. Currently, here at home, there are only four other states that offer civil unions which, while not referred to as marriage, provide all the same rights and benefits that a heterosexual married couple receives.
There are also twenty-six states that have amended their constitutions to explicitly ban the recognition of same-sex marriage.
With all that the federal government already has on its plate, it has been reluctant to take a decisive stand, leaving this instead as a state’s rights issue. I understand that, politically, it will be a long time before we see a nationwide policy on this. But, morally, how can we allow some states to simply opt out of offering equality and civil rights to its citizens?
We didn’t put off passing the 19th Amendment because some men didn’t think it was appropriate; we didn’t push back the passage of the Civil Rights Act because part of the country “wasn’t ready.” Certainly, in those situations, the same accusations were made of the “destruction” of something sacred and the “corrupting” of a system already in place. But in those situations, our government did what was right, what was fair, and sent the message to Americans that they should start getting used to it.
We can’t just sit around and wait for everyone to get comfortable with the idea of same-sex marriage before we take action. People are too imprisoned by their fear of something that seems alien to them - they expect the worst. But in a nation where we brag of our equality and where our moral standing in the world is deteriorating every day, we can no longer afford to treat part of our population like second-class citizens. If we want to claim to be the greatest nation on Earth, maybe it’s time we started acting like it.
Of course, it won’t be an easy process. Even in California, last week’s decision will not be the final word. There will be expensive lawsuits, and appeals, and all the while, the defenders of “traditional” marriage will be screaming out about the destruction of the American family. But our country is founded on a history of choosing what’s right over what’s easy. And now is not the time to turn our backs on that history.
The Red Hot Chili Peppers said it best: “Destruction leads to a very rough road but it also breeds creation…” Progress on this issue may be what some consider the end of an era, of a certain set of traditions and values. But it can also be the beginning of something great, of a time in which we don’t just say that all of us are created equal, but we actually mean it.
—
(email this article or post to social network)
—
(15)
May 20th, 2008 at 8:32 am
well written…Jerry Falwell is spinning is his grave haha
May 20th, 2008 at 2:40 pm
With over 50% of marriages ending in divorce I think the destruction of the American family is already here…
May 20th, 2008 at 7:47 pm
Great article!
As much as I’m in favor of gay marriage, I’m not sure I like the idea of the courts being the ones to make these rules. As your article says, many states have done all they can to ban same-sex marriages, and California’s law was enacted as a result of a popular referendum if I recall; they may now follow suit. The downside to democracy is that sometimes there are plenty of people who are against a sensible idea; the North was hesitant to allow slavery back when the nation was founded, but the South eventually forced the 3/5ths compromise on them.
It was wrong, but that’s how democracy goes sometimes.
May 20th, 2008 at 8:24 pm
If I may, because I’m sure this will come up eventually:
People (Republicans) went straight for the, “All of these gol’darn judges legislating from the bench,” line, and yeah, I suppose that’s true. The only difference is that California voters have to chance to reject judges in the next election following their appointment. So, you know, just to block that path to veiled prejudice before someone tries to go down it.
May 22nd, 2008 at 4:49 pm
The Civil Rights Act and the 19th Amendment were firmly rooted in rights specifically enumerated in the constitution. Marriage, however, is not mentioned in the constitution. The 11th amendment states that rights not mentioned in the constitution are reserved for the states. Voting, and the 14th amendment made sure that the rights at issue in the CRA and the 19th could not be violated by the states.