Proposition 8
Today (05/26/09), the California Supreme Court upheld Proposition 8, the controversial amendment to the California Supreme Court that defines marriage as being between one man and one woman, and only between one man and one woman. Whether you approve or disapprove of this definition, believe gay marriage is a good thing or a bad thing, this is a good decision.
Before I say why, I’m sure you are now asking, where do I stand on the issue of gay marriage? That’s complicated. My answer to this question is usually satisfies no one - neither those who support gay marriage, nor those who oppose it. That is, until they think about my answer, and usually after they’ve been cursing my name for a couple of days.
What is my answer? I think the government should stop issuing marriage licenses. I think they should take the marriage license form, cross out the word “marriage”, and write “civil union” on it instead. For everybody. Leave the word “marriage” to the churches.
Initially, people to whom I propose this who support gay marriage say that it’s not sufficient because they want to be able to get married like people who can be married now. I ask them in return, for what exactly they are looking? Isn’t it equality in the eyes of the law? The state couldn’t make any churches recognize gay marriage if it was legal anyway. And if they are in a church that already recognizes gay marriage, what’s their beef? Plus, as a legal term, government will have a tough time being discriminatory on something called a “civil union”, much tougher than when the word “marriage” is involved. So the gay marriage supporters go away grumbling, then a couple days later come back and say, “Hey, that wasn’t a bad idea you had.” If they don’t, it’s usually because they were looking for something other than equality. In which case they don’t belong in this debate.
In the same vein, those who are against gay marriage say my answer is not sufficient because it removes a right the majority already has, just to satisfy a minority of the population. To which I ask them, on what is their opposition based? It usually is about social structure and other complex factors. In which case I politely listen, and just as politely respond that the social issues involved are best handled... guess how? By a church. Or some other suitably non-governmental institution. Besides, if the government is only issuing civil union licenses, and then they still get married in a church, how are their rights being taken away? So the gay marriage opponents go away grumbling, then a couple days later come back and say, “Hey, that wasn’t a bad idea you had.” If they don’t, it’s usually because they had reasons considerably less civilized than they were professing. In which case there is no debating with them anyway, so I choose to ignore them.
But back to my original statement, that the California Supreme Court upholding Proposition 8 was the right thing to do for both gay marriage opponents and gay marriage supporters. How can I think that?
Well, it’s remarkably simple.
Imagine an international group of mathematicians getting together and proclaiming that they were no longer going to support the use of the number 4 in any theoretical or practical mathematics. Or a group of physicists declaring the color blue to be chroma non grata.
Ridiculous, huh? Obviously the number 4 is a fundamental part of mathematics, and blue is a fundamental part of the electromagnetic spectrum than isn’t going anywhere, no matter what any physicists say. (If you bring up Pluto, I’ll ignore you.)
Well, the California Supreme Court operates under the auspices of the California State Constitution. This decision today is not like the decision last year, where the Court overturned a law passed by the California Legislature. The Court and the Legislature are on equal footing. The Legislature enacts laws, the Governor enforces then, and the Court determines if they conflict with the State Constitution. But the amendment enacted by Proposition 8 cannot conflict with the State Constitution, because it is part of the State Constitution. It was directly created by a majority of the people, and as such trumps the Court, the Legislature, and the Governor.
For the California Supreme Court to have overturned Proposition 8 would be tantamount to California no longer being a democratic republic. It would have become, no ifs ands or buts, an oligarchy. The Court would have effectively been saying to the people of California: “You don’t run this joint, we do.” Along with a big F U stamp.
There was no way - no effing way - they were going to do that. Nor should they. No one should want that, certainly not gay marriage supporters. I don’t care who you are, or how passionate you are about your cause, you do not want the government - any part of it - to simply say F U to the rule of the people in your favor. Because they would eventually do the same thing to your cause in favor of someone else’s.
No, the best thing for you gay marriage supporters is to try and get the amendment replaced by the people of California, not repealed by the government of California. Because if you want it some other way, all you protesters out there right now, you really aren’t thinking things through very clearly. And clear thought is what everyone should strive for, especially now.
Before I say why, I’m sure you are now asking, where do I stand on the issue of gay marriage? That’s complicated. My answer to this question is usually satisfies no one - neither those who support gay marriage, nor those who oppose it. That is, until they think about my answer, and usually after they’ve been cursing my name for a couple of days.
What is my answer? I think the government should stop issuing marriage licenses. I think they should take the marriage license form, cross out the word “marriage”, and write “civil union” on it instead. For everybody. Leave the word “marriage” to the churches.
Initially, people to whom I propose this who support gay marriage say that it’s not sufficient because they want to be able to get married like people who can be married now. I ask them in return, for what exactly they are looking? Isn’t it equality in the eyes of the law? The state couldn’t make any churches recognize gay marriage if it was legal anyway. And if they are in a church that already recognizes gay marriage, what’s their beef? Plus, as a legal term, government will have a tough time being discriminatory on something called a “civil union”, much tougher than when the word “marriage” is involved. So the gay marriage supporters go away grumbling, then a couple days later come back and say, “Hey, that wasn’t a bad idea you had.” If they don’t, it’s usually because they were looking for something other than equality. In which case they don’t belong in this debate.
In the same vein, those who are against gay marriage say my answer is not sufficient because it removes a right the majority already has, just to satisfy a minority of the population. To which I ask them, on what is their opposition based? It usually is about social structure and other complex factors. In which case I politely listen, and just as politely respond that the social issues involved are best handled... guess how? By a church. Or some other suitably non-governmental institution. Besides, if the government is only issuing civil union licenses, and then they still get married in a church, how are their rights being taken away? So the gay marriage opponents go away grumbling, then a couple days later come back and say, “Hey, that wasn’t a bad idea you had.” If they don’t, it’s usually because they had reasons considerably less civilized than they were professing. In which case there is no debating with them anyway, so I choose to ignore them.
But back to my original statement, that the California Supreme Court upholding Proposition 8 was the right thing to do for both gay marriage opponents and gay marriage supporters. How can I think that?
Well, it’s remarkably simple.
Imagine an international group of mathematicians getting together and proclaiming that they were no longer going to support the use of the number 4 in any theoretical or practical mathematics. Or a group of physicists declaring the color blue to be chroma non grata.
Ridiculous, huh? Obviously the number 4 is a fundamental part of mathematics, and blue is a fundamental part of the electromagnetic spectrum than isn’t going anywhere, no matter what any physicists say. (If you bring up Pluto, I’ll ignore you.)
Well, the California Supreme Court operates under the auspices of the California State Constitution. This decision today is not like the decision last year, where the Court overturned a law passed by the California Legislature. The Court and the Legislature are on equal footing. The Legislature enacts laws, the Governor enforces then, and the Court determines if they conflict with the State Constitution. But the amendment enacted by Proposition 8 cannot conflict with the State Constitution, because it is part of the State Constitution. It was directly created by a majority of the people, and as such trumps the Court, the Legislature, and the Governor.
For the California Supreme Court to have overturned Proposition 8 would be tantamount to California no longer being a democratic republic. It would have become, no ifs ands or buts, an oligarchy. The Court would have effectively been saying to the people of California: “You don’t run this joint, we do.” Along with a big F U stamp.
There was no way - no effing way - they were going to do that. Nor should they. No one should want that, certainly not gay marriage supporters. I don’t care who you are, or how passionate you are about your cause, you do not want the government - any part of it - to simply say F U to the rule of the people in your favor. Because they would eventually do the same thing to your cause in favor of someone else’s.
No, the best thing for you gay marriage supporters is to try and get the amendment replaced by the people of California, not repealed by the government of California. Because if you want it some other way, all you protesters out there right now, you really aren’t thinking things through very clearly. And clear thought is what everyone should strive for, especially now.