A New Argument For A New Day
(or: why both sides have lost their mind and lost their way)
by Jason Charnick
Well folks, it's come to this. The day I write an essay is a rare one indeed. With the argument regarding gay marriage and California Proposition 8 reaching a fever pitch in the last few days, and both sides (very loudly) making their case, I've found myself inspired enough to make my voice heard as I've always felt my view on the situation is rare one, one where I believe both sides are very much misguided, and neither of which really know what they're fighting for anymore. I understand that the perceptions of my opinions will differ greatly depending on your own personal perspectives, but know that I mean no malice toward either side in this debate, and that my only wish is to try to bring some sanity back to a situation quickly spiraling out of control.
A little background: I am a non-practicing Jewish male, age 33, native of New York City, living in the greater Los Angeles area for going on 9 years now. I am straight, and my mother's best friend throughout my childhood was a lesbian woman who had a live-in partner, and to whom I was frequently exposed (she even taught me karate for about a week before I gave it up!). They would come over for family dinners, with her even bringing her sister and father along on various occasions. No mentions were really made regarding their sexuality, they were just another couple my mom was friends with from work.
In my present life, someone whom I love dearly and consider one of my closest friends is gay, and a sibling of another close friend is gay as well. And believe me, their sexual orientation is the last thing on my mind, as I'm too busy trying to find a girlfriend of my own! So while not necessarily being in the heart of gay culture in America, I am somewhat familiar. And it is because I love those people dearly, that I have been moved enough to words as I struggle to understand where it all went wrong.
This essay will only deal with law and legality as it pertains to California state. I understand that other states may have their own legislation regarding the rights and responsibilities of "married" people and "domestic partners" as I'll call them here, and in any state where there is inequity between the two in said legislation, then work still needs to be done to be sure.
However, in the state of California, since 2007, there has been Family Code Section 297-297.5
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=fam&group=00001-01000&file=297-297.5
on the books which states, in part:
297.5. (a) Registered domestic partners shall
have the same rights, protections, and benefits, and shall be subject
to the same responsibilities, obligations, and duties under
law, whether they derive from statutes, administrative regulations,
court rules, government policies, common law, or any other
provisions or sources of
law, as are granted to and imposed upon spouses.One of the criteria to be eligible for domestic partnership is to be part of a same-sex couple, amongst others as well. So it would appear on its face that legally (and by association, governmentally), same-sex couples in California already have exactly the same rights and responsibilities as what the government refers to as "married" couples. Yes, we learned only a short time ago in this nation that "separate but equal" isn't really equal at all. In Brown vs. Board of Education in 1954 we as a country decided that the mere distinction between two separate groups belies an inherent inequality in those groups. That is why my position is that we remove any mention of marriage from the government entirely. What the government now refers to as a "marriage" between members of the opposite sex would heretofore be known as domestic partnerships as well.
When this nation was founded, and the government began to grow, the powers that be decided that in order to promote the growth of the nation, and the stability of the family unit, that couples should be afforded certain tax breaks, and other benefits and responsibilities that single people just weren't eligible for. Seeing as how the founding fathers were religious men (and because, quite frankly, back then there just wasn't any other way), they used the religious criteria to define who these couples were. And so they used the religious term "marriage" in their definition. This was their fatal flaw, and although separation of church and state is one of the most dearly held American principles, here the government was mingling the two in a way that would soon create far more difficulty.
I firmly believe that marriage is a strictly religious term. It has been around as a religious institution far longer than our nation has, and therefore only the arbiters of dogma (e.g. The Pope) can truly define it. Anything else is really just semantics. Even during the brief period of time where same-sex marriages were legal in California, I challenge you to find a single Catholic church that would perform one. Believe me, even as a Jew I can tell you that now matter how legal gay marriage might ever be, the Catholic church won't ever see things that way. So for me it is as plain as day: Government simply does not have the power or the authority to define what marriage is.
And now that we have established that: a) the legal rights and responsibilities of domestic partners are exactly the same as married couples in the state of California, b) regardless, merely having separate distinctions for domestic partners and married couples is inherently unequal, and c) marriage at its essence is religious doctrine, I see no other solution to the issue than to steadfastly adhere to separation of church and state and remove the term marriage from government altogether. I believe this to be the most truly just and tolerant position to hold.
Which brings me back to why I think both sides are totally off their rocker. As I now believe the true fight for equality is to make all eligible couples known as domestic partnerships, I struggle to understand exactly what it is No On Prop 8 is fighting for (and don't worry, I'm gonna rip the Yes folks in just a bit... hang with me). Disregarding the inherent inequality in the two definitions for the moment (and seeing as how my solution brings everything under a single definition, I can do that), it is indeed factual that, governmentally speaking, same-sex couples already have the same rights as married couples. And yet, during the campaign, I see this commercial featuring U.S. Senator Diane Feinstein (D-CA):
Senator, regardless of the outcome of the election, the language in the current statute is clear. There is to be no discrimination. As it stands now, should any same-sex couple be discriminated against in any way, they would have recourse and legal standing in any state court of law. Also, Senator, how does the proposition "eliminate fundamental rights?" The Proposition in no way was ever to affect the CA Family Code 297.5. Not one same-sex couple, registered in California as a domestic partnership, would ever lose any rights they've already been afforded by 297.5. Although you are absolutely correct on one assessment, Senator: it does treat people differently under the law, for the reasons I've mentioned previously.
Could someone also tell me exactly what's stopping same-sex couples from having lavish ceremonies and receptions and parties right now even without the government telling them they're "married?" I paraphrase Ellen DeGeneres on her show when she said that she's so happy she can finally get married. Or to the guy at the San Francisco protest holding this sign:
http://sfist.com/2008/11/06/thousands_protest_over_prop_8.php?gallery17637Pic=10#gallery
You already have that freedom. Go ahead. Nothing is stopping you. Like I said, don't try getting married at St. Patrick's Cathedral, but Prop 8 or no Prop 8, no one is standing in your way to have your own ceremony as you see fit, whether it be a commitment ceremony on the beach, or a wedding performed by a progressive church who chooses to recognize same-sex marriage in a religious ceremony. Either way, you won't get tossed in jail. This is not a crime. At the end of the day, the government will give you the same benefits as married straight couples once you qualify. I urge you to look over the gallery of pictures at the above cited web site. You will find a number of them holding signs which are just flat-out factually incorrect.
So the fight is really just misdirected in my opinion. You want the Vatican, not the State Capitol. You want the rabbis and synagogues and mosques of the world, not City Hall. If you're just looking for the government to be on your side while you take on religion, good luck, but we're having a hard enough time balancing our state checkbook, let alone picking a fight with the Pope. I think he answers to a higher power than the California State Senate anyway. As unfortunate as it may be, there are groups of people that will just never be accepting of your lifestyle, and it will never matter that the government gives you the word marriage. The haters will always find a reason to hate.
One last thing before I shine a light on the bigotry and insensitivity of those people, of the majority of the Yes on Prop 8 contingent. While I am still amazed that the Proposition passed 52% to 48% (I honestly thought it would come out the other way), these are the results and it is clearly the will of the people. Defining the issue however you see fit, it's clear that even in a well-known liberal state such as California, the folks just aren't ready for it at the present time. Misdirected as the fight may be in my opinion, it's clear the winds of change are blowing, it's just not there yet. Protests in the streets, ACLU lawsuits, petitions, Facebook groups, it all just strikes me as sour grapes, and an improper channelling of one's anger. Give it time. Put it on the ballot next year, or the year after. It's more than clear that this will happen and most likely happen soon. When I see protests in the streets, people nearly rioting, what I see is the ultimate act of intolerance, the ultimate disrespect to the current will of the majority.
Oh, don't get me wrong, the Yes on Prop 8 people can be much, much worse. While their fight might not be as misdirected as the No side per se, they are often much more mean, hateful, and fearful. And the result of this hatred has much farther reaching ramifications than that of the No contingent.
I am not a believer in organized religion. As far back as the Crusades, to the current world crisis with Islamic fanaticism, organized religion has done much to injure the world and fracture its population. I know a lot of good has been done as well, but that "con" side of the list strikes me as plenty long.
About a week before the election, I saw a full length advertisement in the Los Angeles Times, depicting Jesus on the cross, along with the usual biblical quote about homosexuality being an abomination, etc., etc. My how seeing this upset me. Again, I'm not a religious man, but I'm sure that if Jesus were on the cross today, he'd be weeping at how perverted his message has become. I'm fairly certain that in no way would Jesus himself ever dare to label someone's actions and behaviors as an abomination. Its very usage is so archaic at this point. The world might be in bad shape for other reasons, but we are not in a hell on earth, the world as we know it has not come to an end. Homosexuality has been around since the days of ancient Rome and earlier, and it's certainly not going anywhere now. These are not abominations. These are your neighbors, your coworkers, your friends. Viewing another group of people as being less than you because of certain personal proclivities is the very height of intolerance, fear and hatred. I always found it so striking that in a religion that preaches "love thy neighbor," many people find it so easy to add, "unless you're one of those people, and in that case you can burn in hell."
Look, I understand, you've lived all your life thinking a certain way. The major religions of the world have existed for thousands of years believing and exalting those beliefs in a certain way, and now that you feel the winds of change, and now that you see that there is no abomination, that these people just want to live in love and peace just like you, your belief system is shaken, you fear the unknown. It is this fear that organized religions have cultivated for centuries to keep the flock close at hand.
It is clear we now live in a new world order. One where many different segments in society live together freely in peace, proud of their differences, and proud of their similarities. And yet this fear still exists. Take this Yes on Prop 8 commercial for example:
The commercial opens with the ultimate height of fear for the parent of a young child: that they would be subjected to lessons that the parent may object to. Although not a parent, while I can certainly understand these fears, this particular commercial preys upon this fear through misdirection, and even outright lies. The court case the professor refers to at the open isn't even a California case to begin with! Parker v. Hurley is a Massachusetts case, and thereby has absolutely NO influence or bearing on the state of California! Professor, I am including the full, entire, unabridged text of Proposition 8 below for you, since it's clear to me that you never read the text:
http://www.voterguide.sos.ca.gov/text-proposed-laws/text-of-proposed-laws.pdf
This initiative measure is
submitted to the people in accordance with the provisions of Article II,
Section 8, of the California Constitution.
This initiative measure
expressly amends the California Constitution by adding a section thereto;
therefore, new provisions proposed to be added are printed in italic type to indicate that they are
new.
SECTION 1. Title
This measure shall be known and
may be cited as the "California Marriage Protection Act."
SECTION 2. Section 7.5 is added
to Article I of the California Constitution, to read:
SEC. 7.5. Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.Surprisingly enough, of all the propositions on the California ballot this year, Prop 8 is one of the shortest, and yet the most controversial and divisive! But as you can see, there is no mention of education at all, so any claim that it is "already happening," is a complete and total falsehood, at least as it pertains to the state of California. But this doesn't stop the Yes contingent from using these falsehoods to continue to propagate and instill fear. They even use a simple ellipsis as an opportunity to withhold information from their supporters when they quote California Education Code 51933 section 7. What do they leave out? Well, here's the complete text:
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=edc&group=51001-52000&file=51933
(7) Instruction and
materials shall teach respect for marriage and committed relationships.Wow, well would you look at that! According to my interpretation of that sentence, Proposition 8 itself has no bearing whatsoever on what would be taught in schools! It doesn't matter. Pass it or not, "committed relationships" means exactly that, and makes no distinction as to the sexual orientation or even the gender of those in the relationship! In addition, there is no mention that this education is an absolute requirement, or that a parent can't opt their children out of such education if they so desire. Another example of fear-mongering amongst Yes on Prop 8 zealots. In furtherance of my personal stance, since marriage is merely a subset of committed relationships, there is no valid reason at all why the word shouldn't simply just be removed from the text of the state education code entirely.
I could go on and on and cite example after example where both sides use misdirection and stretch the truth to achieve their means. For me the fact remains as simple as this: marriage is a religious institution, and as such needs to be removed from government and legislative language at all costs. There are churches who regardless of the law will perform same-sex marriages, and those that won't. There are simply too many religious sects in this state, this country, and this world to expect the government to craft the proper language to cover them all.
In fact, it should be obvious to anyone who's read this far, that legally speaking, across the board, Proposition 8 doesn't actually do anything to affect anybody's current rights! If you're a gay Catholic, you couldn't get married before it, and you won't be able to get married after it. If you're gay member of a church that sanctions same-sex marriages, then you can get married before, and you can still get married now, and apply for domestic partnership with the state. If I meet a same-sex couple on the street and you introduce yourself and your spouse to me as being married, I'll take you at your word, Proposition 8 or not. All Proposition 8 really does is create distinctions between people when there ought to be none. Brown vs. Board of Ed. taught us this is NOT the American way. For these reasons, I find that the only true solution, the only just and tolerant solution is to eliminate the word marriage from any and all state-issued legislation.
To my dear friend, who is gay, I say this: regardless of what the state constitution says, the day you meet your soulmate and fall in love and want to celebrate it and announce it to the world, I'm right there with you, partying it up, and getting hammered, just like any other wedding I've ever been to.
Remember that web gallery I mentioned earlier? Well there was one signholder there who hit the nail square on the head:
http://sfist.com/2008/11/06/thousands_protest_over_prop_8.php?gallery17637Pic=15#gallery
You're so right! So why are you asking the government to do exactly that? The time has come. Remove the word marriage from the legislature, and truly restore equal protection under the law, once and for all.