As it reads now, California Family Code Section 300 defines marriage as being “a personal relation arising out of a civil contract between a man and a woman, to which the consent of the parties capable of making that contract is necessary.”
With Proposition 8’s passage, there has been much discussion as to where do we go from here? But what I ask is, maybe it is time to “create a separate but equal” institution? Render the term “marriage” as religious term, and establish civil unions as the federally recognized contract, in keeping with the separation of church and state doctrine of our Constitution.
In an ideal world, this should work. Alas, that’s not the world we live in, at least right now. In addition to California, Arizona, Florida, and Arkansas passed anti-gay ballot measures. Florida and Arizona voters approved a constitutional amendment to limit marriage to opposite sex couples, and in Arkansas, which already has the constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, has passed a measure to limit adoption and foster care of children to people who are legally married.
However, there’s hope. In 2000, Prop 22, which prevented California from recognizing same-sex marriage, passed with a 61.4% approval (38.6% opposed, which were about 2.9 million no on Prop 22 votes); eight years later, support for gay marriage has increased to 47% of the votes casted, to over 5.2 million . That’s a remarkable turnaround of voter approval. Exit polls showed that six in 10 voters under 30 objected to Proposition 8, while the same proportion of persons over 65 supported the measure, giving hope that I’ll be able to see acceptance of gay marriage in California during my lifetime.
In addition, the May 2007 California Supreme Court decision that in essence struck down Prop. 22, has left the door open for a possible repeal of Proposition 8, in the same vein as what happened with Prop. 22. I have spoken informally with Stuart Gaffney, one of the plaintiffs in this landmark May 2007 case, about the prospects of the recent lawsuits challenging the recent passage of Proposition 8 on grounds that Proposition 8 constituted as a “revision” in the Constitution, which requires a 2/3 vote from both branches of the California State Legislature before being put up for a vote. He’s cautiously optimistic about the case, in which he bestows his full support and trust on the lead attorneys in this case.
It is also encouraging to see elected officials filing “friend of the court” in opposition of Proposition 8. And as a country, we’ve elected a president that would usher in change; it also helps that he has backed the repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act.
Above all, if we as a state voted to give farm animals more rights, surely, we can give our fellow human beings the opportunity to express their love, right? I hope so. But ultimately, what we all can do to further the cause for equality for all is more education. Forty years ago, we still had laws prohibiting interracial marriage in sixteen states, until Loving v Virginia deemed these miscegenation laws unconstitutional. And now, generations later, as a society, we have come to terms of acceptance and tolerance with regards to interracial marriages, and I hope for the same with same-sex marriage. Tolerance is a dish served best with education, and not cold.
P.S. I higly recommend watching MSNBC's Keith Olbermann's Special Comment on Gay Marriage. At times, I think he could be a bit over the top, but I think this time, he was spot-on, and he eloquently expressed what I would wish to say.