Can’t ... not ... comment ... on Prop 8 ...
Realizing that much ink and much wringing of hands has already been expended on the Prop 8 ruling of this month, I loathe to add more to the already-muddled throng, but alas, I must. However, I will restrain myself to a single point here.
In 136 pages (yes – I read it all), Judge Walker makes a very (excruciatingly) careful record of the trial and of his decision. He addresses each element of the arguments for and against, and discusses each witness and their testimony. My last hope was dashed on the shores of I-was-right-after-all-ville. I have spent many years trying diligently to find an actual explaination for exactly how gay marriage would undermine, devalue, or in any way really affect hetero marriage. This decision was my one remaining hope, but still – nothing. Perhaps the Supreme Court will say something, but it’s not lookin’ good – they’re bound to the record.
I generally try to at least hear the other side of an argument, but after several years, I am left empty. The sum total of the best-thought-out arguments against gay marriage all seem to boil down to “it just will.” But WHY???? I beg of you – why? Tell me what the precise mechanism is that will create the endless parade of horribles that the antis claim must certainly result from legalizing gay marriage.
The very fact that gays are willing to fight so hard for so long to be permitted to marry seems to only support the ongoing vitality of marriage as a social institution. And yet the fight for the right to marry has somehow been labeled the doom of the very prize. Odd.
So on to a point that follows (for me anyway) on the heels of this – the Other Side. In my view, it isn’t the right of gay couples to marry that threatens marriage as an institution of social value, but rather the opposition to it. That’s right Righties – it’s all your own doing! Here’s how it works. You (the antis) are making marriage into a club – a heteros-only club. And in the process, you are pushing marriage into a particular social cubical – an ultra-religious, intolerant, out-of-touch, isolationist, old-fashioned cubicle. Not surprisingly, there are many, many people who don’t want to play in your clubhouse, and choose to reject being associated with those labels. Consequently, the young will flock away from the very thing you are trying so hard to make Yours and Only Yours. No one who disagrees or wants to do things differently need apply. So congratulations, you’re turning marriage into a Whites Only golf club, a Men Only bar, and losing the war to win the battle.
The appeal of Walker’s decision has hung itself on the state’s interest in funneling procreative relationships into the stable institution of marriage. So, let me get this straight. If we let gays marry, all of their accidental procreating will happen outside marriage? And if we let gays marry, all the heteros who accidentally procreate outside marriage, won’t. Huh? I will stop now, and hopefully the silliness of this last, desperate attempt to keep up the No Blacks, Girls, Jews, Protestants, (fill in your favorite group here) Allowed signs up.
And P.S. – a friend of mine once said that his objection to gay marriage is simply that the states shouldn’t be involved with marriage in the first place, it’s a religious institution. Agreed, but they did get involved, so now they are involved and the actuality of marriage is as a civil and legal structure. The religious element is now little more than ceremonial. So it has to be addressed as a civil institution with the attendant civil benefits. No one has ever said that any church would have to perform gay weddings any more than they have to perform interracial or interfaith weddings. That’s still entirely up to the church. And now that I’ve been to my first church-performed gay wedding, I can say with authority that it was every bit as beautiful, moving, romantic, and meaningful as any hetero religious wedding performed at the point of a shotgun.
OK I lied – there’s one more thing. I’ve heard a lot of outcry about an “activist judge” overturning the “will of the people” and I feel the need to express the outrage and face-palmistry of this. Holy cow people – didn’t any of you ever have 6th grade Civics!! The judicial branch of government is designed to be isolated from populist influences. The whole idea of an independent judiciary is for the judges to protect the minority from oppression by the majority. THAT’S THEIR JOB!!! The legislature is for populism, the judiciary is expressly NOT a populist institution. Judges are supposed to protect the rights of the people least able to do so through the legislature. So the complaints that the judge was out of line for overturning the will of the people, and claims that this is evidence that something has to change, are just embarrassing to me. Well, I’m embarrassed for the people making these claims. Especially since they seem to buttress their outrage with references to the Founders and democratic government. Really? Try again – you clearly don’t understand the tripartite government you’re so busy defending. Grab a 6th grade textbook and do a little looking-into and get back to us.
OK then, carry on. I’m just saying.
No comments:
Post a Comment