As I’m from Idaho and currently reside in Utah, I know I don’t really have a say in what California does with their constitution, but the 1st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution gives me the right to say what I want to, so here goes. =D
Ever since I began hearing about Prop. 8, I’ve had the niggling little thought that I’d heard this before. Where you ask???? In my U.S. History classes… Yes that’s right, it sounded familiar because we’ve all heard these arguments before! In 1896 the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of “separate but equal” when they ruled that racial segregation was acceptable, in Plessy v. Ferguson. When we studied the court’s decision to overturn that archaic law in 1954 with their decision on Brown v. Board of Education, did we not think with pride of how far we had come since that distant past? When it comes right down to it, denying marriage to people in same sex relationships is nothing more than another attempt at separate but equal. In fact, many of the exact arguments used against desegregation, especially when it came to interracial marriage, have been resurrected in the rhetoric concerning Prop. 8. For instance, on January 6, 1959, Trial Court Justice Leon Bazile, while he was hearing the case against Mildred and Perry Loving, said, “Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, Malay and red, and He placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with His arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that He separated the races shows that He did not intend for the races to mix.” This argument, minus the racial specifics, is one of the keystones of the supporters of Prop. 8. It’s the argument that God never intended such unions, that they are unnatural and an abomination in his eyes, and as such, we need to prevent them. Ultimately, the Supreme Court ruled that these types of laws violated our 14th Amendment right to Equal Protection, and deemed the laws unconstitutional when they handed down their decision in Loving v. Virginia (1967). They said, “Marriage is one of the ‘basic civil rights of man.’” and that denying marriage based on the “classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law.”
Ever since I began hearing about Prop. 8, I’ve had the niggling little thought that I’d heard this before. Where you ask???? In my U.S. History classes… Yes that’s right, it sounded familiar because we’ve all heard these arguments before! In 1896 the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of “separate but equal” when they ruled that racial segregation was acceptable, in Plessy v. Ferguson. When we studied the court’s decision to overturn that archaic law in 1954 with their decision on Brown v. Board of Education, did we not think with pride of how far we had come since that distant past? When it comes right down to it, denying marriage to people in same sex relationships is nothing more than another attempt at separate but equal. In fact, many of the exact arguments used against desegregation, especially when it came to interracial marriage, have been resurrected in the rhetoric concerning Prop. 8. For instance, on January 6, 1959, Trial Court Justice Leon Bazile, while he was hearing the case against Mildred and Perry Loving, said, “Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, Malay and red, and He placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with His arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that He separated the races shows that He did not intend for the races to mix.” This argument, minus the racial specifics, is one of the keystones of the supporters of Prop. 8. It’s the argument that God never intended such unions, that they are unnatural and an abomination in his eyes, and as such, we need to prevent them. Ultimately, the Supreme Court ruled that these types of laws violated our 14th Amendment right to Equal Protection, and deemed the laws unconstitutional when they handed down their decision in Loving v. Virginia (1967). They said, “Marriage is one of the ‘basic civil rights of man.’” and that denying marriage based on the “classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law.”
While I don’t plan on picking apart every minute detail of every argument in favor or against Prop. 8, I believe it’s worth mentioning a couple of gross misstatements. The first is about what will happen in California’s schools if the proposition fails. There are arguments that if California’s constitution isn’t amended to specify that the traditional definition of marriage is the only marriage recognized, that children will be forced to learn about same sex marriage at school regardless of their parents wishes. This isn’t true. Under the California Education Code, public schools are under “local control” when it comes to what is taught in their schools. One of the locally-decided curriculum choices is whether or not to teach sex education (Cal. Ed. Code 51933). If the local school district decides to teach sex education, then the “instruction and materials shall teach respect for marriage and committed relationships” (Cal Ed. Code 51933(a)(7)). IF a local district decides to teach sex ed, a “parent or guardian of a pupil has the right to excuse their child from all or part of comprehensive sexual health education” (Cal Ed. code 51938).
The final argument I’ll address is that because domestic partnerships are recognized in California, marriage becomes unnecessary. What they overlook is the uncertainty surrounding the term domestic partnerships. During emergency situations, especially, the domestic partner may not be recognized immediately by those handling the situation as family and someone who is able to make decisions on behalf of the other partner when that partner can’t make the decision themselves.
We could talk for days about the religious and cultural aspects of Prop. 8, but what it really comes down to is this is not as much about gay rights as civil rights and human rights. It comes down to the fact that we would be advocating another type of segregation. We would be advocating it so adamantly, that we would be willing to amend the constitution, the very skeleton of California’s government, to add our discriminatory language specifically to deprive other citizens of their constitutionally guaranteed equal protection under the law. We’ve learned the lessons of history and we have come further than that.
“It is often easier to become outraged by injustice half a world away than by oppression and discrimination half a block from home.” – Carl T. Rowan
Please keep your comments polite. As Rowena, from Rowena’s Rants, says, “I have no compunction against deleting rude comments at my own hyper-sensitive discretion.” Thanks!
“It is often easier to become outraged by injustice half a world away than by oppression and discrimination half a block from home.” – Carl T. Rowan
Please keep your comments polite. As Rowena, from Rowena’s Rants, says, “I have no compunction against deleting rude comments at my own hyper-sensitive discretion.” Thanks!
