Ban state marriages? Um, probably not this election cycle
A California Supreme Court justice found the idea intriguing. So did the Times editorial board: To ensure equal marriage rights, the state of California could consider getting out of the marriage business altogether, performing and recognizing civil unions for all. People who want marriage could go to the church or other private group of their choice, and those churches or groups would be free to recognize only the marriages that fit within their beliefs.
Practically within moments after Justice Ming W. Chin posed that scenario to lawyers on both sides of the Proposition 8 debate, two college students from Studio City stepped into the fray. They received permission from the Secretary of State to circulate petitions for an initiative to do that very thing: Substitute "domestic partnership" for "marriage" in state law and while we're at it, undo Proposition 8. My first questions were of the more substantive sort, like, shouldn't we talk about this for awhile first? Would we be undoing the marriages of people who opted for a civil ceremony in earlier years and figured they were married good and proper? What would happen to joint tax filings for the federal government? And wouldn't "civil union" be a more acceptable term to voters than "domestic partnership"?
Then I read the proposed initiative in its entirety and realized that my worries might be a little premature. The real questions are, Just how easy is it to get permission to circulate petitions for an initiatives? Shouldn't the wording have to pass some sort of writing test?
The proposed measure calls for the term "marriage" to be removed from government legislation. The State of California's Law code would have "marriage" replaced with "domestic partnership," while the definition and rights provided would remain the same. The purpose of which is to provide quality amongst all couples, regardless of sexual orientation, without offending the religious sect. Legally speaking, "Marriage" itself would become a social ceremony, recognized by only non-governmental institutions. Furthermore, the initiative would void Proposition 8."
Ali Shams, one of the two authors and a senior at UC San Diego, told me that he and pal Kaelan Housewright were operating via Facebook, though they would get an Internet page going soon, and were posting copies of the petition online in the hopes that volunteers would print them and collect 1.2 million signatures. The new faces of politics. At least they're involved in the process.
Rather than having the State get out of the marriage business, why not have "The Church" (TM) get out of it? I mean, society has been using the term marriage for well before the religionists took it on. Faiths could stick to the term "Holy Matrimony" or "Holy Union" - none of which would (nor should) be recognized by the Government.
Civil marriage is a civil matter. Get religion out of State business and not the other way around.
Posted by: George Olds | April 04, 2009 at 10:35 AM
Of course not having to deal with the swelling Proposition 8 debate would seem appealing to the California Supreme Court – elusion is one of their specialties.
Should they decide to replace legal marriage with domestic partnerships as the initiative suggests it would be to make everyone happy by dealing with the immediate, immediately – it’s the kind of righteous instant gratification they’ve had so much practice with.
Proponents of proposition 8 would be happy because the union would no longer defile the sacred label of marriage, and the opposition would be satisfied because in the eyes of the law a homosexual couple would be afforded the same rights as a married heterosexual one.
But the arguments for or against Proposition 8 have gone beyond the notions of equal marriage rights, of religion and traditional family that campaigns on either side so adamantly pursue. These are symptoms – dilutions of a much simpler problem. It’s just about rights.
We keep fighting the same battle – civil rights, women’s rights, now homosexual rights – each a marginalized community fighting for equality. With no disrespect for any of these movements if we look at their fundamental goals they are the same. But the fundamental problem has not been addressed. And we’re side-stepping it again.
Unless we stop pushing the issue of strict equal rights aside, making it about race or sex or sexual orientation, in ten years there will be another similar fight to be fought. Frankly, although it might be a little messier, a little more difficult and it might take a little longer, I think we should deal with it now and be done with it.
Posted by: Emma-Louise Vezey | March 18, 2009 at 12:11 PM
Hi,
I have been saying for a number of years now that all governments in the United States should get out of the business of marriage.
All governments should recognize only civil unions between a man and a women, two men or two women.
If the two want to get a marriage license, they should go to a church of their choice that will accept their marriage.
This will assure equal rights to all.
Sincerely,
Fred Azbell
Posted by: Fred Azbell | March 18, 2009 at 07:10 AM
I have been saying this for years, and catching great hell for it too. The state has no business in the marriage business. The most wonderful day of my life was marred by the horror of having our parish priest insist we sign a state document prior to his performing the ceremony. Let freedom ring!
Posted by: LibertyVini | March 18, 2009 at 04:41 AM
I think you likely missed the point of Justice Chin's and Justice Kennard's comments. They point out that Prop 8 merely defined a term and that the remainder of their decision in the prior case remains. Namely that gays are a suspect class and laws must reviewed using strict scrutiny. Since gays are excluded from marriage via prop 8, strict scrutiny review of the existing marriage laws will likely require that they be thrown out. Prior decision noted that the justices had two options: extend marriage rights to gays and lesbians or throw out existing marriage laws or rename it. They chose to extend marriage rights to everyone. Prop 8 merely said that wasn't the appropriate response. CIVIL UNIONS for all.
Posted by: bluprntguy | March 17, 2009 at 04:00 PM
Compare and contrast; one of my high school english teachers drilled that into my head. Compare and contrast: Slave rights and gay rights; the contrasts are easy, the comparisons are profound. Slaves could not get legally married either. They could not create and sign contracts, and what is marriage mostly (legally speaking) but a huge contract with thousands of rights and responsibilities. Navanethem Pillay, the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights spoke there last year saying, "That just like apartheid laws that criminalized sexual relations between different races, laws against homosexuality are increasingly becoming recognized as anachronistic and inconsistent both with international law and with traditional values of dignity, inclusion, and respect for all." Apartheid: A system of laws applied to one category of citizens in order to isolate them and keep them from having privileges and opportunities given to all others. Stop gay apartheid....
Posted by: boarderthom | March 17, 2009 at 03:11 PM