Ruthie Kelly’s Portfolio

Photo credit: cerambycidae

When most people think of marriage, they think of flowers, white dresses, binding vows in front of friends and family and the hefty price tag of marital bliss. How romantic.

What most don’t have to think of are the political and social implications of your vow to love another person forever … or whether you’re allowed to have the official stamp of approval at all.

All of this changes, of course, when you and the person you marry are the same gender. Suddenly people from religions you don’t adhere to, who follow politics you don’t agree with, can pipe in with opinions about the morality and legality of your relationship. Worse, these people have the power to impact what kind of relationship you choose to have.

For several years, Americans have argued: Should homosexuals be granted the same choices and freedoms offered to heterosexuals? Should overbearing religious fundamentalists have the power to legislate citizens’ bedrooms with their particular brand of invasive, blatantly hypocritical morality?

Now these questions are no longer a matter of personal taste, as the Supreme Court of California must decide within 90 days whether gays are separate but equal or competely equal.

In 2000 California voters passed Proposition 22, which defined marriage as being between a man and a woman; effectively preventing any deviant form of matrimony. In February 2004, San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom openly challenged that ruling by issuing over 4,000 marriage licenses to homosexual couples.

Since the initial 2000 ballot, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger twice vetoed legislation that would permit gay marriage, saying the decision should be left to the voters and the courts. Since then, legislation has also passed creating registration for same-sex couples in an attempt to provide them with many of the same benefits enjoyed by married couples - a move that may prove to backfire, as opponents argue such legislation removes the need for marriage in the first place. The 2000 voter-initiative has been working its way through the appeals court as both pro and con battle for victory over the authoritative definition of marriage.

What the California Supreme Court faces is a choice - an opportunity for justice. This panel has the power to recognize the legitimacy of alternative sexual relationships, to promote equality and to make a public confirmation: homosexuals are human, full citizens with the right to access the same choices, freedoms and liberties that privilege heterosexual couples. More than that, as legitimate, contributing members of our society, we are morally obligated to grant homosexuals, as we should grant anyone, the right to choose their own partner and access to the same privileges.

That privilege includes a marriage certificate. As evidenced by our past bad track record, separate but equal is rarely actually equal, and even if it is, it’s still an unlawful exclusion. There is no legitimate reason to separate homosexuals from “normal” society - legally or otherwise. The gay society is part of our society, and always has been, though society hasn’t always been willing to admit it. Pretending homosexuality doesn’t exist or that same-sex relationships are somehow less meaningful than those between people of the opposite sex, does nothing but perpetuate repression, fear and negative stereotypes. It also elevates the perception of heterosexual relationships as “real” ones, another way to dehumanize homosexuals.

Maybe we heteros can stand to get off our high horse for a few minutes and notice that homosexual couples are actually better for society than we are, because they are happier and their relationships last longer, according to a recent study conducted here at SDSU. Perhaps asking members of the gay community about the secret to a successful long-term relationship will help decrease that divorce rate the fundies are always bemoaning - the blame for which, might I add, rests entirely upon the heterosexual population.

Some have rightfully compared this ruling to another California ruling in 1948 that struck down a ban on interracial marriage, the first state court to do so. Preventing marriage on the basis of gender is just as reprehensible as preventing marriage on the basis of race.

More importantly, virtually all the arguments against gay marriage boil down to religious grounds - say it with me, separation of church and state - or general discomfort with homosexuality.

The solution to this is simple: if you don’t believe in gay marriage, don’t marry a gay person. In all other respects, it’s really no one else’s business who marries whom, except those doing the marrying.

Redundant as it is to say, the fact bears repeating: it is 2008. Society should have collectively moved past our inclination to legislate other people’s relationships by now.

The Supreme Court has an opportunity to enforce justice for all citizens, not just the heterosexual ones. Here’s to hoping they follow what they know is right, and not what some fundamentalist tells the “special book” claims is right.

Read the original column online here.