Every age offers its people a chance to evolve or to stick in a haven of outmoded ideas.
Which brings us to Proposition 8, which would amend California's constitution to ban same-sex marriage.
Prop. 8 should be defeated. And it can be defeated without any defeat to religion, to personal moral convictions or to "traditional" marriage.
All can flourish. All should.
Prop. 8 is wrong because - let's not kid ourselves - civil unions are not the equal of marriage. They do not bestow the same dignity, respect or exalted status as marriage.
And if the law is treating citizens unequally, the discrimination must stop, even if tradition supports it, even if a majority prefers it.
Tradition in the case of same-sex marriage, it has been said, is just discrimination that has been passed down.
And a majority, no matter how strongly held its views, is not reason enough for a state to enshrine discrimination in law. A state needs a better reason than that. Same-sex marriage presents none.
It is not for the majority - for anybody - to deny a person's deepest, most intimate relationship and commitments. To deny them their most fundamental right.
Why should we? "Traditional" marriage is not protected by such a ban; those desiring traditional marriage are free to marry. Same-sex marriage will not restrict anyone's rights.
But banning it will, and unfairly. Because sexual orientation bears no relation to a person's ability to contribute to society.
Here in our own city we have entrusted a lesbian Councilwoman with a multimillion-dollar treasury of our dollars, our public safety and the growth and future of our city.
What does it say about us as a community that we find her competent to shoulder this responsibility but not deserving to marry her partner of 20-plus years?
How can a person be an esteemed leader and a second-class citizen? That is pretzel logic.
And what about the children of same-sex couples? The state permits same-sex couples to adopt. Clearly the state recognizes same-sex couples can be good parents.
So what is it like for children when society tacitly says their parents rank below others? What is that like on the schoolyard? Can discrimination against children be "family values?"
No. Even if Yes on 8 is thundered from the pulpits. Religious leaders opposed to same-sex marriage are not rendering unto God what is God's; they are telling Caesar how to run the secular show.
Well, it is a democracy down here, and the right to disagree includes the right to live according to different values. That is not disrespect. That is 1776.
The Connecticut Supreme Court, upholding same-sex marriage, recently wrote that decisions about such things as marriage, procreation and child rearing are the very essence of individual freedom, in fact, of individuality itself.
"At the heart of liberty," the court wrote, "is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe and of the mystery of human life. ... Belief about these matters could not define the attributes of personhood were they formed under compulsion of the state."
The chance to end marriage inequality is like the choice to give women the right to vote, or to hold them unfit because they were born women.
It is a historic chance to renounce a long history of discrimination, not to mention violence, against homosexuals. Or to perpetuate it.
Permitting same-sex marriage also is a chance to re-interpret our law so it does not petrify into irrelevance but remains a living force for basic human rights in modern life.
People opposed to same-sex marriage are free to live according to their religious beliefs or personal moral convictions. But one thing no one can do is champion American rights by denying them.
This column from "The Record" is reprinted in distinct, easy-to-understand chunks, for the dim-witted "Yes on 8" crowd. Kind of like speaking slowly. You can contact columnist Michael Fitzgerald at (209) 546-8270 or michaelf@recordnet.com.
No comments:
Post a Comment