California is stupid

Well, I can't say it was unexpected. All the inside reports from California predicted the outcome of the state's Supreme Court case regarding Proposition 8. It was still somewhat disheartening.

I am a supporter of the rights of same-sex couples to get married, plain and simple. I can't find any non-arbitrary, non-religious justification for why people of the same sex cannot be married under our Constitution. What rationale is there? The Declaration of Independence, the proclamation of our freedoms and the written demand that they be upheld, cites certain "inalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." Apparently, the will of the majority decrees that only said majority can pursue happiness. Who are we, the heterosexuals in this country, to impose upon others "our" will for how they are to live their lives? The will of the majority must not come at the expense of the rights of the minority. To do so would be oppression. We live in a democratic society, to be sure, where We the People assert our will through elections; it is still the job of the government to protect those who may be exploited. Think, just over 40 years ago, it was illegal in 36 states for a black person and a white person to get married. Why?

Insert answer here...I'll wait.

Exactly. It was arbitrary. The minority was oppressed due to the will of the majority, which, thankfully, changed over time, along with the passage of civil rights legislation in the latter half of the 1960's. It seems that every generation has to have some group to oppress. Maybe it's human nature, to exploit those who are perceived as weaker, who traditionally hold less clout.

The only arguments that I have heard against same-sex marriage are religious or moral in nature. It is "an abomination" or homosexuals are "perverts" or otherwise offensive to God. So, if God made everyone in his own image, yet you find them offensive...slippery slope. Not going there. Oh, and according to Leviticus, shellfish are an abomination too.

But let's stick to the legal arguments. The United States government cannot and should not legislate morality. Religious organizations founded the Prohibitionist movements as early as the 19th century, culminating in the Eighteenth Amendment to the Constitution. The Twenty-first Amendment repealed the Eighteenth after widespread dissatisfaction with, and disregard of, Prohibition (as well as rampant crime, i.e. the Mafia). The point? When the government invades the private lives of its citizens, it fails. That does not mean, of course, that people can do whatever they want and claim government oppression when they commit a crime. When someone's actions affect others negatively, then the government can step in. So explain to me exactly how same-sex marriage negatively affects my life?

Thomas Jefferson called for a "wall of separation" between church and state. He was a Founder of this country, and one of its earliest presidents. I should think he would be rolling over in his grave if he heard the arguments being made by the fanatics on the extreme right about this issue. If you can't make a political argument without invoking God, then you shouldn't be making it.

Now, the decision handed down by the California Supreme Court does not completely prevent same-sex marriage. As court cases typically are, the issue at hand was narrow. Did the voters of California have the authority to amend the state's constitution in this case? The answer, under existing law, is yes. California has some crazy ways of governing, but unfortunately this action was legal, and I won't attempt to fight that. Maybe California needs to change the way it does business, but that's a whole other issue. Thankfully, the existing 18,000 same-sex marriages were upheld. Had they not been, that would have been an abomination.

I want to see this issue continually fought, all the way to the United States Supreme Court if necessary. I defy the highest court in the country to find sound justification for the prevention of same-sex marriage. What Constitutional provision demands that marriage be defined as between one man and one woman, or even allows the government to make such a decision? I think the answer should be obvious. I don't think this particular case that was decided today will proceed to appellate court, because it was so narrow in scope and the decision is pretty clear. I am sure that one day we will see this case before the Supreme Court, in one way or another.

Until then, we'll have to see what the gay rights activists do in 2009. I hear the opposing proposition will be on the ballot in the next election. And this time, tell the Mormon Church to keep its $20 million out of the ads and propaganda. If you want to keep your status as a tax-exempt church, act as a church, and not a damn political action committee.