Friday, October 31, 2008


I don't see how any civil libertarian can possibly agree with not letting gays get married. First of all, marriage shouldn't be a Constitutional issue at all. In fact, it shouldn't be a government issue except that the state makes it a government issue when they decide to attach government benefits and drawbacks from being married (including the need to get a license). In a rational world, same-sex couples could be married and a church that would not want them married would simply say "no", and that would be that. They would be married somewhere else, maybe by someone who is not religious. In reality, that's how it should be, but it's not. Government has decided to get into the business of legislating marriage and it has decided that a certain group of people should not get all those benefits and drawbacks of that legislation. No, "Domestic Partnerships" do not present the same exact benefits of marriage. Therefore, California was at one time practicing the art of segregation, very interesting coming from the progressive capital of the nation.

Then comes the term "activists judges". A truly idiotic statement. Arguing that the California State Supreme Court went against the correct mandate of the people (Prop 22 in 2000) in allowing gay marriage is like saying that the Earl Warren courts were going against the correct mandate of the people in the South, those that practiced the popular theory of segregation. Was that an infringement on the Constitution of the United States? Isn't it the job of the court system to interpret whether or not the government is affording equal protection to its people? It is, and if people don't like it then they should be demanding that the government get the hell out of marriage.

Then comes of the issue of the classroom, where the proponents of this measure think that gay marriage will create some kind of environment where teachers will make off- handed comments like "You really should consider being gay" or something like that. Seriously, this argument disturbs me. Proponents use the examples of bad teaching as the rallying cry for this argument. Two idiot teachers made a field trip for a group of elementary school kids to their wedding, and for some this means that all teachers will now sign up for gay wedding visits for student field trips. The question should be how those two teachers could tie it to curriculum (which you really can't at that age), not if they went to a gay wedding (which parents signed permission slips for). And that "state standard" that pro Prop 6 people are flashing around is an elective Health standard that says that Sexual Education issues will discuss "monogamous relationships and healthy marriages". Yeah? And? What, all of the sudden Health teachers around the state of California will be saying, "The only healthy marriage is a gay marriage"? What a bunch of crap. Truth is, if the question "Is a gay marriage a healthy marriage" were to come up in the classroom, the answer should be, "Are the couples doing the things we discussed that promote healthy marriage?" If the answer is yes, then what's the problem?

Is it that the people are gay? You mean gay = unhealthy relationships? Are you serious? Are you drunk? You're telling me that straight = healthy relationships? Are you really living in the real world? I've had thousands of students that would be prime examples of that theory going straight into the toilet. Ask any kid whose family got a divorce or a kid beaten by his parents or kids that are miserable because of unhealthy relationships. Being gay has nothing to do with good parenting.

In the end, Prop 8 is a 1980's "I'm scared of fags" style attack on a fundamental principle within our society, equal protection. I find it interesting that a group of people that so value the protections of the Constitution, all of the sudden run away from it when something in society shakes up the status quo, and then insist that government has no place in dictating the policy of the scared masses. It was those same masses that had no problem with slavery, no problem with Chinese exclusion, no problem with segregation, no problem Japanese Internment, and no problem with pointing gays away from Constitutional protections because of their sexual orientation. It's disgusting.

I am however jubilant because either way, the Constitution will win the day. If this Proposition passes, I will enjoy the trail this measure takes to the steps of the Supreme Court building in Washington D.C., the same place where similar people told little Linda Brown that segregation wasn't a Constitutional issue, and that she already had her own institution to which she could attend. The result will be the same. Segregation will be shot down, the Constitution will win the day, and the nation will be better for it.

blog comments powered by Disqus