“If you’re in the marriage business, do it equally.â€Â This was the powerful statement made by one of the attorneys representing same sex couples last Thursday in San Francisco. This argument, made at a California Supreme Court hearing, nicely sums up one of the essential responsibilities of the government: govern with equality in all that the government is involved.
Quite simply, if the state is going to remain in charge of civil marriages, then it should do so in a manner that is fair and equal to all; similarly to how it̢۪s supposed to act in all other areas regardless of race, gender or religious beliefs.
Many argue that the amendment made to the state constitution by Prop 8 merely restricts the ‘marriage’ label to apply to unions between opposite sexes. But it is utter silliness to attempt to pass the separate but equal term of ‘civil unions,’ as treating same-sex unions with dignity and respect. In reality, this is only granted through equal treatment of all marriages.
Using these types of terms, not only strengthens the discriminatory stigma, but perpetuates the treatment of same-sex unions as belonging to an inferior group. It sends the hateful message that since homosexuals are not currently recognized by the federal government, our state government is being beyond generous in granting these provisions.
This supposed generosity was even referenced by Kenneth Starr, the lead attorney for Protect Marriage, the organization pushing for Prop 8, when he stated that the proposition “does not erode any of the bundle of rights that this state has very generously provided.â€Â
The misleading view that our state government could even be considered progressive in its treatment of same-sex unions, is beyond false and unfair. Denying the label of marriage is a clear attack toward the equal treatment of all people. It places Californians in a pecking order where one group, already given preference by society, becomes literally politically correct, while the other group is cast aside because not only does it go against society, but now also against the state̢۪s preferences.
It is baffling to see a state, known for its laid back and inviting qualities, repeatedly act in such a discriminatory manner. This is our new separate, but equal fight where a group that is viewed as going against the ‘traditional definition of marriage,’ as stated by Starr, is still dealing with the inequality and oppression of being treated on separate terms because of their differences.
In a fight between traditional values versus rights, is maintaining the ‘traditional’ definition of marriage valid when it destroys the vital democratic element of equal rights?
What then should be given more weight when considering the essential values of our state and country?
A woman standing outside the court hearing, channeled the view of many in favor of the ban when she stated that allowing same-sex marriages, “would destroyâ€Â her “religion.â€Â People with those and similar views fail to realize that when they attempt to generalize their personal beliefs to the population, all they do is fuel the destruction of another set of people’s rights.
If equality is to be achieved, choosing whom to marry should not be any different than choosing a religion. It must simply be a matter of choice.
John • Mar 17, 2009 at 8:48 am
I agree with you 100%, we need to have separation of church and state. That̢۪s why I do not want the state to make a determination on what the religious term of marriage means. Let the churches decide what they want to sanction as marriage.
The issue of gay marriage is either about granting gay̢۪s legal rights or it̢۪s about chipping away at religion. If it is truly about giving equal rights, then the solution is easy, change the legal state sanctioned term for all. If it̢۪s about chipping away at religion, then we will continue this senseless debate.
Some of you might be old enough to remember how the Stanford Cardinal were once called the Stanford Indians. They changed the name so not to offend American Indians, and rightly so. We have other sports team with American Indian nicknames. Should we change them all? Maybe so. Some people would say it̢۪s not really offensive so leave it alone. Who̢۪s right?
Why are we sensitive to some cultures but immune to the other cultures? Whether you like it or not religion is an integral part of American cultural fabric. You may want to ignore that or try and rewrite history, but that̢۪s a fact.
So the real question remains, is this a simple matter of granting legal rights or is this a subversive attack on religious values?
John • Mar 17, 2009 at 3:48 pm
I agree with you 100%, we need to have separation of church and state. That’s why I do not want the state to make a determination on what the religious term of marriage means. Let the churches decide what they want to sanction as marriage.
The issue of gay marriage is either about granting gay’s legal rights or it’s about chipping away at religion. If it is truly about giving equal rights, then the solution is easy, change the legal state sanctioned term for all. If it’s about chipping away at religion, then we will continue this senseless debate.
Some of you might be old enough to remember how the Stanford Cardinal were once called the Stanford Indians. They changed the name so not to offend American Indians, and rightly so. We have other sports team with American Indian nicknames. Should we change them all? Maybe so. Some people would say it’s not really offensive so leave it alone. Who’s right?
Why are we sensitive to some cultures but immune to the other cultures? Whether you like it or not religion is an integral part of American cultural fabric. You may want to ignore that or try and rewrite history, but that’s a fact.
So the real question remains, is this a simple matter of granting legal rights or is this a subversive attack on religious values?
ultimate surrender dot com • Mar 16, 2009 at 6:06 pm
The people have spoken. Move on. Barack brought out the minority vote in droves and gay Californians have him to thank for the passage of 8. If gays want to take their anger out on anyone, look to blacks and Hispanics.
ultimate surrender dot com • Mar 17, 2009 at 1:06 am
The people have spoken. Move on. Barack brought out the minority vote in droves and gay Californians have him to thank for the passage of 8. If gays want to take their anger out on anyone, look to blacks and Hispanics.
Daniela Lopez • Mar 16, 2009 at 5:38 pm
John:
I understand the importance the term ‘marriage’ has because of the religious associations made, however, the argument for gay marriage is not to allow same-sex unions to take place in churches but in courts officiated by government employees. Thus, marriage, in terms of religion, would not be changed within the realm of any particular religion but in terms of California’s, and eventually, our nation’s law. We do have to find something that works for all, and particularly because of that, I would also argue to uphold a church’s right to decide whom they’re willing to marry.
I agree that we should be tolerant of people’s beliefs but when it comes to religion, decisions like whom you’d like to marry, should not extend past the realm of that religion. When religious ideas exceed the boundaries of personal preference and invade a group’s right under the government’s law, a personal belief ceases to personal ‘truths’ but becomes a set of ideologies forced upon another group.
Finally, the issue with the marriage label is the fact that homosexual and heterosexual unions would both be under the same classification, that of a ‘marriage.’ If we created a new label to be used on both, it’s my guess the problem would remain, since the essential premise of the issue wouldn’t be changed: all relationships, regardless of gender, would be classified under one term.
Looking at the big picture, fighting for this equality is important to maintain all other freedoms, freedom of religion most definitely included.
Daniela Lopez • Mar 17, 2009 at 12:38 am
John:
I understand the importance the term ‘marriage’ has because of the religious associations made, however, the argument for gay marriage is not to allow same-sex unions to take place in churches but in courts officiated by government employees. Thus, marriage, in terms of religion, would not be changed within the realm of any particular religion but in terms of California’s, and eventually, our nation’s law. We do have to find something that works for all, and particularly because of that, I would also argue to uphold a church’s right to decide whom they’re willing to marry.
I agree that we should be tolerant of people’s beliefs but when it comes to religion, decisions like whom you’d like to marry, should not extend past the realm of that religion. When religious ideas exceed the boundaries of personal preference and invade a group’s right under the government’s law, a personal belief ceases to personal ‘truths’ but becomes a set of ideologies forced upon another group.
Finally, the issue with the marriage label is the fact that homosexual and heterosexual unions would both be under the same classification, that of a ‘marriage.’ If we created a new label to be used on both, it’s my guess the problem would remain, since the essential premise of the issue wouldn’t be changed: all relationships, regardless of gender, would be classified under one term.
Looking at the big picture, fighting for this equality is important to maintain all other freedoms, freedom of religion most definitely included.
Diane • Mar 12, 2009 at 5:35 pm
I really appreciate the thoughtful consideration of this controversial topic in your editorial today. While it is important to respect that people may disagree with same-sex marriage for religious reasons, in a pluralistic society that values both religious freedom and political & legal equality, we should not rely on religious conviction and doctrine to determine who has marriage rights granted by the state.
Diane • Mar 13, 2009 at 12:35 am
I really appreciate the thoughtful consideration of this controversial topic in your editorial today. While it is important to respect that people may disagree with same-sex marriage for religious reasons, in a pluralistic society that values both religious freedom and political & legal equality, we should not rely on religious conviction and doctrine to determine who has marriage rights granted by the state.
John • Mar 12, 2009 at 2:24 pm
Gay marriage is a very difficult issue for me. On one hand I belive gays should have equal rights – including marriage. On the other hand as a Christian the term “marriage” has an important meaning for me (as well as other Christians). So applying the term “mariage” to other than the biblical definiation is offensive. You can see my dilemma?
An analogy would be to use the “Nâ€Â word to describe a black person. While some Caucasians would not find it offensive form their perspective, I think most of us would agree that this word should not be used. That example and many other show how we pride ourselves on being a tolerant society. Yet we seem to be so willing and eager to throw Christians under the bus. Why? Shouldn’t we find a solution that works for everyone?
I recent ly saw news article about some students that are trying to put a measure on the ballot that would neutralize marriage for all. That measure would eliminate the term marriage for all (both gay and straight) and use an alternative term to describe the legal relationship. That is the direction we should go and stop bashing each other. Let̢۪s make it a win-win for all and stop this winner take all mentality that only brings forth much grief.
John • Mar 12, 2009 at 9:24 pm
Gay marriage is a very difficult issue for me. On one hand I belive gays should have equal rights – including marriage. On the other hand as a Christian the term “marriage” has an important meaning for me (as well as other Christians). So applying the term “mariage” to other than the biblical definiation is offensive. You can see my dilemma?
An analogy would be to use the “N” word to describe a black person. While some Caucasians would not find it offensive form their perspective, I think most of us would agree that this word should not be used. That example and many other show how we pride ourselves on being a tolerant society. Yet we seem to be so willing and eager to throw Christians under the bus. Why? Shouldn’t we find a solution that works for everyone?
I recent ly saw news article about some students that are trying to put a measure on the ballot that would neutralize marriage for all. That measure would eliminate the term marriage for all (both gay and straight) and use an alternative term to describe the legal relationship. That is the direction we should go and stop bashing each other. Let’s make it a win-win for all and stop this winner take all mentality that only brings forth much grief.
Scout • Mar 11, 2009 at 4:02 pm
Here, here!
Scout • Mar 11, 2009 at 11:02 pm
Here, here!