Marriage: Destroyed

So, I’m sure most of you have heard about the recent overturning of California’s Proposition 8. If not, I’ll get you up to speed

It started as Proposition 22, a simple statute approved by initiative that read "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California". Since it was a statute, it could be struck down by the courts as unconstitutional (with respect to the state constitution). In the case In re Marriage Cases, that’s exactly what happened. The California Supreme Court declared that marriage was a fundamental right, and denying people a fundamental right on the grounds of sexual orientation was blatantly unconstitutional. So, Proposition 22 was out. Good, right?

It would have been, if gay-marriage opponents had accepted defeat. But, they decided to take things to the next level. Call it, the nuclear option

As many of you might know, the only thing that can supersede a Supreme Court ruling is a Constitutional Amendment (whether it be at the state or national level).

Thus, Proposition 8 was born. If the California Constitution prohibited denying gay couples the right to marry, then the Constitution would have to be changed to explicitly deny that right

And unfortunately, that’s exactly what happened. Voters passed the amendment, with 52% for, 48% against. Luckily, there were plenty of people who weren’t going to accept that without a fight.

And that’s where we are today. In Perry v. Schwarzenegger, two couples sued the state, and the case went to federal court. A little interesting note, the plaintiffs were represented by Theodore Olson and David Boies, the men who represented George W. Bush and Al Gore (respectively) in the 2000 presidential election case Bush v. Gore

And for the first time, a gay-marriage ban has been found incompatible with the Constitution. The big one. The top dog. The Federal Constitution. If you ask me (and if you’re reading this, you have!) that’s a pretty god damn big victory. This could have incredibly far reaching implications. The case is being appealed, and will likely be appealed all the way to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court. Now, whether or not they will accept the case remains to be seen. But we might have just seen the first step in the legalization of gay-marriage nationally

Like I said, the decision is being appealed. There are a few arguments that stick out to me as retarded, or without a leg to stand on

“Gay marriage will destroy/damages/sullies the sanctity of traditional marriage!!!” This one is retarded, and is a favorite of the religious-right. I’ve never understood how someone else’s marriage could damage yours, just by virtue of it being recognized as legally valid. As for the institution of marriage itself? Straight couples have managed to fuck that one up just fine by themselves. The divorce rate for first-time marriages is somewhere around 40%, and it’s as high as 73% for third marriages. And don’t forget about good old-fashioned adultery! It’s not exactly uncommon. Hell, remember the supposed “family values” evangelical leader Ted Haggard? It was revealed he was doing crystal meth while boning gay prostitutes. Remember conservative Senator Larry Craig? He pled guilty to soliciting an undercover cop for gay sex in a public bathroom. And apparently it wasn’t the first time he’s been accused. In the 80s, he was accused having sex with male, teenage congressional pages and using cocaine.

Plus, he sounded super creepy when he said this: "The American people already know that Bill Clinton is a bad boy - a naughty boy. I'm going to speak out for the citizens of my state, who in the majority think that Bill Clinton is probably even a nasty, bad, naughty boy."

That sounds like he’s masturbating to a picture of Clinton and talking dirty. It’s seriously fucking creepy. Seriously, I cannot get over how weird that is

So the institution of marriage has been plenty unsanctified by straight people.

But there’s another argument that the religious-right has really been pounding ever since the Perry verdict

“Judge Walker has overturned the will of the people!!!!11” Well, strictly speaking, he has. But they say that like it’s a bad thing. When they say this, they’re implying that because banning gay-marriage was the will of the people (well, 52%), that makes it right. But here they’re missing a fundamental key to understanding the United States, its laws, its government, and its very foundation. It’s something extremely important, and something I believe has contributed the continued stability of this country. I’m going make it all bold and capitalized, just so you know how important I think this point is

THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES ARE NOT SOVEREIGN

Let that sink in for a minute. Some of you are probably thinking, “But wait you crazy cat, I thought America was some sort of fancy representative democracy, of the people, by the people, for the people and all that jazz!”

First off, you talk weird. This isn’t the 20’s. Get with the times. Second, what you said is true, but it doesn’t mean the people are sovereign

“Well golly, who’s sovereign then, Congress? The President? The Federal Government? The States? Robots?”

No, no, no, no, and no (for now). In fact, it’s not even a who. It’s a what. In the United States of America, the Constitution is sovereign. If someone or something is sovereign, there is no authority higher than it. But just as important (if not more), there is no authority equal to it. Think about the absolute monarchs of the olden days. Not only were they the highest authority, there was no authority equal to them. “The People” supporting something (especially a fairly slim majority) doesn’t inherently make that something right. Plenty of people supported slavery, but that wasn’t right. It doesn’t even make that something legal, as so aptly shown by Proposition 8. If something is unconstitutional, the only way to make it legal is to change the Constitution, as prescribed by the Constitution itself as the supreme law of the land. Sounds pretty sovereign to me

This case is a perfect example of why this basic tenet is important, and the huge role the Judiciary has in protecting people from a tyranny of the majority. For one, the fact that they are appointed (i.e., unelected) isolated them from the supposed Will of the People. They are beholden only to the Constitution, to upholding our highest laws. This isolates them from the ever-changing, sometimes irrational demands of the populace and the erratic, easily manipulated winds of public opinion

So Judge Walker might have overturned the will of 52% of the voters in California, but he upheld the truest American ideals. The notion that all people have the right to be treated equally under the law, and the idea that we are a nation of laws, not whims, or fears, or prejudices.

Before I wrap this up, I’ll briefly touch on the religious aspect of this debate. Basically, it’s completely irrelevant. Marriage may have a religious aspect to it for some people, but all that matters legally is, well, the legal aspect of it. Marriage is a legal relationship recognized by the government, and according to the Constitution, all people are considered equal under the law.

There are even some churches in California that are condemning Prop 8 on the grounds that, by not allowing them to perform same-sex marriages, the government is infringing on their religious freedom

Here’s another interesting angle I thought about the other day. Technically, gay people can get married. A gay man could marry a gay woman. Obviously, that probably wouldn’t happen, but they technically could. The issue is that two people of the same gender can’t get married. So if for whatever reason, two straight men or two straight women wanted to get married, they couldn’t. So if you want to think about it that way, this isn’t a case of discrimination based on sexual orientation, just good old fashioned gender based discrimination

Not that I expect that to be an actual legal argument. It was just an odd angle I had never thought about before

Well, that’s all for now.

Also, I originally wrote this in Microsoft Word, and the formatting/font isn't translating right, so it looks different than my other posts and I hate it.