While America was upholding th= result of decades of battle for civil rights by electing an African American to the presidency, tens of thousands of Californians were institutionalizing inequality, injustice and bigotry by passing Proposition 8, which sought to ban gay marriages in California. They wanted to include in the state constitution a provision that would deprive a group of people of their right to happiness and equal protec=ion, and on the same breath would rather protect the rights of chickens, pigs and cows than those of their fellow human beings.
Californians, including blacks= who should have had a better understanding of fighting for minority rights, voted 52% to 47%=to pass Proposition 8. Sixty-three (63) percent of Californians voted to mandat= proper handling of farm animals through Proposition 2.
Proposition 8 sought to includ= in the state constitution the words: “Only marriage between a man and a woman is =alid or recognized in California.”
In 2000, 62% of Californians also sought to include i= the statute Proposition 22 using the same words. But in May, the state Supreme Court invalidated that statute on the grounds that it violated the state constitution’s guarantee of equal protection under the law. This tim=, the gay marriage ban proponents decided to bypass the high court ruling by aiming fo= the words’ inclusion in the constitution.
It must be pointed out that the framers of the constitution, both of the state and of the United States of America, include= the protection of individual rights precisely to ensure that such rights cou=d not be taken away by legislative or administrative action, or even by the “tyranny of the majority.”
In that May ruling, the state Supreme Court correctly pointed out that the right to marry is one such constitutional right that mu=t be provided equally to all people desiring to marry. Using a ballot measure, spending millions of dollars, and twisting the facts to deprive a group of people because of their sexual orientation is an assault on the sanctity of =he constitution.
Proponents of Proposition 8 claimed that the union of same-sex couples undermines the “traditional” definition of =arriage and thus poses a threat to the institution of marriage. In March 2005, Judge Richard Kramer noted that a violation of individual rights cannot be justified by it= historic acceptance. It must also be pointed out that more than 18,000 same =ex marriages have been legalized for years, but the “traditional‽9D institution of marriage has not been put in peril, nor has society collapsed. Nor have thes= marriages degrade the marriage of traditional man-woman couples.<=span>
It must also be pointed out that legali=ation of gay marriages does not require those who have moral objection to them, to recognize or approve =f these marriages. Neither does it require priests or church ministers to perf=rm or bless such marriages. Neither does it require schools, as falsely claimed=by Proposition 8 proponents, to teach that there is “no difference⽸0? between the traditional man-woman marriages and same-sex marriages.
Many proponents cite the Bible saying that the Holy Scriptures describes marriage as that between a man and a woman. These religious fundamentalists tend to forget that gays are God’s creatio=, too, so why treat them differently? Why deprive them of their right to be happy, to spend their life with the person they love, and experience the joys of havin= a family while enjoying the benefits and protection of the law? Can they hones=ly say that God feels differently about gays?
While we want to respect the result of the vote on Proposition 8, our nation being a democracy, we must not forget that in this nation’s history, injustice, inequality, discrimination and segregat=on prevailed for centuries because of the “tyranny of the majority.⽸0?
The constitutional guarantee of individual rights has=been upheld time and again by the state Supreme Court. I am confident that the co=rt will not allow the constitution to be amended to deprive a group of individu=ls their rights to suit other people’s personal and religious beliefs.<=:p>
Many gay couples have been together for 20, 30, even =0 years, far longer than many traditional marriages. As correctly pointed out =y the San Jose Mercury News in a recent editorial: “All couples who ex=hange vows know, in their own hearts, the depth and spiritual meaning of their union. T=at is for them, not others, to determine.”
I say, amen.
(valabelgas@aol.com)