 Revoking same-sex couples' right to marry doesn't belong in the state constitution.
What is this?
Save & share this article |
California Prop. 8 Editorial: Intrusion into marriage should be even-handed
Revoking same-sex couples' right to marry doesn't belong in the state constitution
Proposition 8 on the November ballot at least has the virtue of being short and simple. It would amend the California constitution to say, "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." The story behind it, however, is not so simple.
In 2000, California voters approved those same words as an initiative statute. However, this past May, the California Supreme Court invalidated that statute on the grounds that it violated the state constitution's guarantee of equal protection under the law. We thought that was a correct court decision. Prop. 8 would put the ban on recognizing same-sex marriages into the state constitution.
Guarantees of individual rights are included in constitutions precisely to ensure that such rights cannot be taken away, by majority vote, legislative enactment or administrative decision. The state Supreme Court ruled that the right to marry is a fundamental individual right that must be provided equally to all people desiring to marry. Allowing same-sex couples to share in this right does not denigrate or degrade the marriages of the vast majority of people who enter into the traditional man-woman form of marriage. It strikes us as simple fairness.
Proponents of Prop. 8 argue that it simply restores "what human history has understood it [marriage]to be." But marriage has not been a static institution. At one time wives were treated as chattel and had no property rights of their own. Interracial marriage was once banned in California, but that law was overturned as recently as 1948 on similar equal-protection grounds.
As our understanding of equal protection has evolved and expanded and as an increasing number of same-sex couples have expressed a desire to make lifelong commitments to one another incidentally, promoting societal stability and reducing promiscuity it has become clear that equal protection should be extended to same-sex couples.
The legal ramifications of the court's ruling have been minor, since the Legislature had already extended most of the rights accruing to married couples to domestic partners. The institution of marriage has not crumbled. It will continue to be the most important voluntary social institution in our society.
A few shibboleths deserve to be explored. Legal recognition of same-sex marriage does not require those who have a moral objection to homosexuality or homosexual marriage to recognize or approve of it. It does not require ministers who have doctrinal or moral objections to perform or bless such marriages. And it does not require schools to teach that there is "no difference" between man-woman and same-sex marriages.
In an ideal world, the state would have little or no role in defining or regulating so intimate a relationship as marriage. However, the state has inserted itself into all too many aspects of our private lives. Given that it has done so, it is only fair that it afford equal protection to all who choose to make loving lifelong commitments to one another. We recommend a "no" vote on Prop. 8.
