|
||||||||||||
|
The Case for Gay Marriage Rights in California Mandi Gordey Before the United States achieved independence, a document was penned by Thomas Jefferson, that we know as The Declaration of Independence. One of the most easily recognized statements of this document refers to rights that the men of that time thought should be “self evident”. Some of these self evident truths are that we all have the right to, “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness”. However, there is a large percentage of the population of our country who are denied these rights. Lesbian and gay citizens are denied the right to marry, so are also denied the rights of marriage that all other citizens have access to. This denial of rights exists at both a federal and state level. At the federal level, there is a call for an amendment to the United States Constitution that would forever ban the right of the states to pass a law allowing the marriage of gay people. In California, there is a law from 2001 “California Family Code 308.5” that bans the state from recognizing the existence of a same sex marriage performed in another state or nation. The rights of lesbian and gay peoples are not being dealt with on a federal level; if anything they are being attacked. California has always led the nation in respecting diversity at a personal level, but now California has an obligation to its citizens to protect them from a path of inequality that the nation as a whole is heading toward, and a duty as a part of this nation to lead the way by example. There are now a number of countries where the marriage of gay people is legal. According to the website of the Human Rights Campaign: Two countries grant same-sex couples the right to legally marry. Nearly 10 countries grant rights and protections that are more limited than marriage but more extensive than those provided in the United States. Fifteen countries recognize same-sex couples for the purposes of immigration, a benefit not yet granted by the United States (1). The granting of the right to marriage by gays is not new ground on an international level. Most recently, Canada has ruled that preventing the marriage of gays is contrary to their constitution, and has ordered all provinces to be ready for a new provision granting the right of marriage to gays on a national level, and the United Kingdom has announced plans to allow gays to register domestic partnerships. The opponents of gay marriage rally behind the religious right, stating that gay marriage is unnatural and will destroy the American family. However, the call for a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, proposed by U.S. Rep. Marilyn Musgrave, R-Colorado, was responded to by a coalition of clergy from her own state. The group, consisting of forty-five Christian and Jewish clergy, calls itself Colorado Clergy for Equality in Marriage, announcing itself with the statement in the Rocky Mountain News, that they “likened the marriage-rights effort to the struggle for civil rights” (1). Founder of the group, the Rev. Gilbert Caldwell went on to say, “History, I believe, will view legislation against same-sex marriage as being insensitive, invalid and illogical, as was the legislation that prohibited interracial marriage” (1). The political lobbyist group, American Family Association is taking a strong stance in the fight against the rights of gays to marry. Their publication arm, Agape Press, is used to urge Americans to fight against the “Homosexual Agenda”. In a recent article, author Bill Fancher urges people to call for the Federal Marriage Amendment: It is time for conservative Christians to use their political power to pressure the White House to get behind the Federal Marriage Amendment effort -- even at the risk of annoying conservatives allies. The urgency of the current assault on traditional marriage demands a forceful response (1). The arguments against gay marriage and legal civil unions for gays are often calling on biblical scripture to back up their argument. One of the most often used is from the book of Leviticus in the Old Testament, “Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.” (18:22). The book of Leviticus is mainly a list of rules given to Moses by God. It’s my contingency that most of these rules are not paid any attention to by the same people who cite Leviticus as a reason no to allow gay unions. For example, “And if a woman have an issue, and her issue in her flesh be blood, she shall be put apart seven days: and whosoever toucheth her shall be unclean until the even.” (15:19). Here we are told that when a woman has her menstrual cycle, she must be put apart from men for seven days. Do we do this? No. Other rules from the same book also include not eating anything from the water that doesn’t have scales, how to properly sacrifice a goat, and how to prepare turtledoves for sacrifice to God (11:9-9:3-1:14). Using the Bible as an argument against gay marriage isn’t valid. At least not when the very people making the argument arbitrarily claim that one law is valid and the other laws are now invalid. Who are they to make this decision? There isn’t a logical progression to making this pronouncement. By what authority is it made? And also, if this is a country that believes in religious freedom, how is it allowable to codify a law based on a religious text? On this basis the very act of creating a law based on the Bible should be unconstitutional. The next argument against gay marriage to address is the statement that it will destroy traditional marriage. For one, drawing on the Bible again to describe marriage, many of the families written of have more that one wife. In the book of Samuel it is written that King David had two wives (2-2). Is this the traditional marriage that will be ruined? Of course not, once again there is contradiction in what the opponents use as background in their reasoning. Also, I don’t believe that any statement that gay marriage will destroy traditional marriage can be taken as valid, but only as speculation, simply because there is no data to compare the two with. Though gay marriage is almost legal in Canada, is legal in Belgium and the Netherlands, and gay civil unions are legal in several nations and Vermont, this hasn’t been a fact long enough to compile data from. The next argument that I would like to address is that legalization of gay marriage would lead to bestiality, polygamy, incest and such. Comments like this have been made by numerous people, including Senators Bill Frist and Rick Santorum according to Planetout.com (1). There simply are no references in any scientific literature to tie homosexuality with any of the above mentioned. The people who make arguments such as this are simply throwing out scary buzz words to enflame the public against gay marriage, playing on a hoped for ignorance of the general public to gain support. It is my belief that none of the arguments against gay marriage are valid. There is no reason not to allow gays to have the same benefits of marriage enjoyed by heterosexuals in marriage. One point I would like to make concerning the benefit of allowing gay marriage is that it will set an example of acceptance of gays in our society. We can easily look at both ends of acceptance. In Canada, laws are now in the process of being codified for the purpose of gay marriage. Here in California, there are laws protecting gays in the workplace, in education, in housing and in other areas of public interaction. I am safely able to rent a house without having to pretend to be a “roommate” with my partner. I can feel safe that my employment will not be jeopardized if it is known that I am gay. In contrast to this, I would like to use Mexico as an example. In Mexico, only a few miles south of us, there are no protective laws for gays and our abuse there in horrible. Sam Quinones, in his book True Tales From Another Mexico, shows how gay men in Mexico are limited and abused, “Mazatlán society, while it generally doesn’t socialize with openly gay people unless it has to, isn’t averse to having around a gay man who knows his place” (90). Quinones goes on to show the basic envy that the openness toward gays in the United States engenders in the gays of Mexico, “You’re alone. You can’t adopt because you can’t marry [...] If I’d known you could adopt children in the United States as a gay man, I’d have gone there (92). Do we want to allow laws in this country to create envy of freedoms in other countries for our own citizens? Is this the country we want to live in, where we lust for the greater freedoms available in the rest of the world? I don’t believe that we do. However, it doesn’t look as if the United States as a whole is willing to make gay marriage legal today. With this, let me iterate that California has always led the nation in respecting diversity at a personal level, but now California has an obligation to its citizens to protect them from a path of discrimination that the nation as a whole is heading toward, and a duty as a part of this nation to lead the way by example. My proposal is that we start the legislative process to combine the laws protecting gay couples here in California into a law that protects same sex long term relationships on a broader level. It could be done in steps, starting as a law that allows civil unions leading eventually to legal gay marriage. First, this law would have to replace California Family Code 308.5, which currently forbids California licensing gay marriages or recognizing gay marriages or civil unions licensed in another state. According to a list on the website of the Human Rights Campaign, there are existing laws that we can start with. California Government Code § 22871, 22871.3 from 2001 provides health benefits for domestic partnerships of all state employees (1). The text of this law can be built upon to require all employers to provide health benefits for all domestic partner relationships in the same manner that they currently provide for married employees. Building on this, legislation needs to be written to cover the other benefits of marriage that apply to heterosexual marriages. I feel that by accomplishing this, we will have set the stage for the rest of the country to follow. And what will be the benefits of this legislation? For the nation, it will be an example set by the most populous state. It will be a statement that we support all of our citizens equally, as was intended by the nation’s constitution. On a more realistic level, it will benefit all of our citizens, gay and straight alike. Our next generation of children will grow up seeing this as a firm example of inclusiveness of our gay citizens. Just as saying that it is not okay to be gay gives the message that discrimination is okay, this will give the message clearly that it is not. The incidence of acts of hate will surely go down. And the shame felt by many young people who are gay will be lessened. These young people will not grow up feeling the implied shame that my generation felt. Young gay people, for the first time, will grow up feeling moral and just about their own feelings. They won’t feel the way that Quinones’ tells about gays being in his book, nor treated in any similar fashion like what is stated here, “Across Mexico jotos are a national caste of jesters, or eunuchs, or gypsies. They can be publicly gooses, whistled at, beaten, tortured, and laughed at with impunity” (81). California will produce the first generation of self empowered gay and lesbian people in the history of our country. California can lead the way to a future of freedoms instead of fears, much as the civil rights demonstrations of the fifties and sixties lead the way for our countries black population.
Works Cited Christensen, Jen. Frist revises marriage amendment support. Planetout.com. 16 Jul 2003. 30 Jul 2003. http://www.planetout.com>. Fancher, Bill. Pro-Family Leader: Christians Must Pressure White House to Protect Traditional Marriage. American Family Association - AgapePress news. 22 Jul 2003: 30 Jul 2003. < http://headlines.agapepress.org/archive/7/afa/222003c.asp> Human Rights Campaign Foundation. Couples Partners International Rights. 2003: 30 July 2003 < http://www.hrc.org/familynet/chapter.asp?chapter=197>.
Lowe, Peggy.
“Clergy
back gay marriage.”
Rocky Mountain News.
11 Jul 2003: 30 Jul 2003 <http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/state/article/ Online-literature.com. Holy Bible: King James Version. Jalic LLC. 2002. 30 Jul 2003 http://www.online-literature.com/bible/Leviticus/>. Quinones, Sam. True Tales From Another Mexico. Albuquerque: New Mexico Press, 2001.
|
|
|
|
