Gay, Straight, Black, White, Marriage is a Civil Right Georgetown Independent (subscription)

Mikaela Sutherland Dunitz

In 1961, less than 50 years ago, President-elect Barack Obama's parents could not have married in half of the United States of America. If the Supreme Court had not redefined marriage, they would not be granted that right today. In 1967, Loving v. Virginia ended all race-based legal restriction on marriage in the U.S. However, in 2008, 48 of the 50 states still uphold marriage discrimination laws that deny same-sex couples the inalienable right to marry.

Last May, California was the second state, after Massachusetts, to recognize same-sex marriages, ruling that California's ban on such unions violated gays and lesbians the right to be free of arbitrary discrimination. The court also recognized discrimination based on sexual orientation as unconstitutional, in the same category as bias based on race or sex.

On November 4, 2008, with a 52% majority, California voted Yes on Proposition 8 for a Constitutional Amendment which states that, "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."

In one of the most historically progressive states in the country, this regression in human rights is both shocking and constitutionally unsound. Recently, the court agreed to review two arguments by opponents of Prop 8: that the measure exceeds the legal range of a ballot initiative by allowing a majority to restrict a minority group's rights, violating the constitutional separation of power by limiting judicial authority. This leaves 18,000 married couples in limbo as to whether their marriages are valid or whether they will be revoked along with their first-class citizenship. While those newlyweds await their federal validation, the court refused, 6-1, to allow same-sex marriages to continue while it considers the constitutionality of Prop 8. The Supporters of Prop 8 have twisted their campaign from one of "Protecting Marriage" (read: Protecting Marriage Discrimination) to one of "Protecting Children" (read: Protecting Children's Ignorance and Intolerance). Because they have no real constitutional argument, they have recast the issue of same-sex marriage as an issue of elementary school education.

In 2006, a second grade teacher in Massachusetts read "King and King," a children's book about same-sex marriage, to her students. Outraged parents asked for monitoring privileges of their children's story-time, which they were denied in Parker v. Hurley. Prop 8 supporters have thus manipulated the issue to appear as if reading a children's book in class about same-sex marriage is the direct result of federally allowing same-sex marriage. But children's books with same-sex couples exist in school libraries and classrooms across the country, even though same-sex marriage is still illegal in all of them (save Massachusetts and Connecticut). If only human rights were as easy to uphold as a children's book.

Promoters of Prop 8 have misled California voters to believe that a ban on same-sex marriage would "protect" their children from ever learning about gay people. All of the promotional videos on the official website for Prop 8 mention or center around the theme of "protecting" children (e.g.: "Everything to Do with Schools"). This connection is false. Under California law, public schools are not required to teach anything about marriage. Even if they were, not one word in Prop 8 mentions education. Additionally, the Parker v. Hurley case is irrelevant because California law prohibits teachers from forcing children, against the will of their parents, to learn about health and family issues at school.

Another misleading tactic used by the Prop 8 campaign is that of protection of the church. But the court decision regarding marriage specifically states "No religion will be required to change its religious policies or practices with regard to same-sex couples, and no religious officials will be required to solemnize a marriage in contravention of his or her religious beliefs." While separate but equal is unacceptable, the separation of church and state is imperative. It is the recognition of the state, not the church, that same-sex couples seek.

While it is clear in chapter 22 of Leviticus that He does not approve of a man "lying" with another man, He also condemns the eating of shellfish (Lev 11:11) and the wearing of blended materials (Lev 19:19). I wonder how many Prop 8 supporters were wearing a cotton-poly blend when they filled in their ballot.

Sometimes tradition, even the word of Leviticus, must be re-examined and redefined when it no longer applies, and indeed injures, our current society and its people.

Finally, a word to those who claim to support equal rights without the titular recognition of marriage: civil unions are separate and anything but equal. In 1997, The General Accounting Office released a list of 1,049 benefits and protections available to heterosexual married couples, which are not afforded in civil unions. What is more, in the few states where civil unions and/or domestic partnerships do exist [Vermont, New Jersey, Vermont, California and Oregon] they only provide legal protections to gays and lesbians within the borders of their respective states.

Inalienable rights-such as equal protection under the law-are not on reserve for persons of certain qualifications. They are inalienable for a reason.



Dunitz is an English junior.

Gay, Straight, Black, White, Marriage is a Civil Right Georgetown Independent (subscription)