I had just written my latest column for the Indianapolis Star, and emailed it, when I logged on to read my son Stephen's blog--only to find a post making most of the same points. Even the language is similar--although I'm embarrassed to note that HIS was free of snark, while mine wasn't exactly as civil...

Here's his:

In light of all the hoopla over the recent California Supreme Court decision, there are a few points to make for the willfully ignorant: Conservatives love to apply the epithet ”activist judges” to any decision they don’t agree with and imply that this works against the democratic process. The balance of powers is there for a reason, but in point of fact, the California Legislature (duly elected by the people of California) twice passed same sex marriage, only to have it vetoed by the governor.

It always surprises me to hear conservatives argue that marriage in its current form is an institution dating back many millennia. They clearly know nothing about the true history of marriage (and clearly don’t care to have their beliefs challenged with actual facts). I came across a wonderful article today by a historian named Hendrik Hartog entitled, “What Gay Marriage Teaches About the History of Marriage” that beautifully addresses some of these points.

It also surprises me to hear people who consider themselves to be “for equal rights” completely comfortable with the idea that the word marriage should be reserved for heterosexuals. I am sure they wouldn’t feel as comfortable with the idea that interracial marriage should be called “transracial union” and same race marriages “marriage”, but that would exactly have been their position 40 years ago, fully believing themselves to be without animus. Separate is never equal.

Speaking of public perception, the very idea that gay marriage should be something that should be subject to a vote is disturbing. One of the great ideas of our constitution is that some things should NOT be subject to a vote, that there are inalienable rights which are not subject to the tyranny of the majority. As an example my mother often cites in pedagogic settings, there is a reason why the majority can’t vote to make you Protestant or Catholic or any other religion. Matters of conscience are not subject to majority rule. Marriage in our society is such a fundamental right that it should not be subjected to vote, unless the outcome will apply to everyone, not just a disapproved class of people.

Also speaking of public perception, it is interesting to note that when the Supreme Court ruled in 1967’s Loving v. Virginia case overturning miscegenation laws, a much higher percentage of people were opposed to interracial marriage than are opposed to same sex marriage today.

And here's mine:

The California Supreme Court has struck down that state’s ban on same-sex marriage. And we all know what that means: the forces of self-righteous indignation are gearing up for the mother of summer reruns. Wait for these oldies but goodies:

Judges have no business making such decisions. Um, sorry, but that’s their job. Judges are supposed to decide the cases before them, and some require deciding whether a particular law is consistent with the state or federal constitution. Judges don’t just wake up in the morning and say, gee, I feel like overturning some legislation today.

Judges should not overturn the will of the people. Failed government class, did you? In a constitutional republic, fundamental rights are not subject to majority vote. The Bill of Rights is a list of things the government cannot do even when popular majorities approve. In this case, moreover, that argument is unavailable; the California legislature—the “voice” of the people—passed same-sex marriage legislation not once, but twice, only to have Governor Schwarzenegger veto it both times. (It’s also worth noting that those on the Right who scream most loudly about respecting “the will of the people” didn’t hesitate to ask the courts to overturn the will of the people in Oregon who passed a referendum legalizing assisted suicide, or the will of the people in California who endorsed medical marijuana. Can we spell hypocrite?)

We need to elect Republicans who will put “strict constructionists” on the bench. Well, let’s see. It’s certainly true that contemporary Republicans are determined to put ideologically driven judges on the bench. And they have had some measure of success. But judges who are even minimally qualified are more likely to rule based upon controlling statutes and precedents than on their personal preferences. The California Supreme Court is a case in point: of the seven sitting judges, six were appointed by Republican governors.

And then there’s the old standard: Throughout human history, marriage has always been between one man and one woman. Well, no. In early Israel, a man could have several wives and concubines. (People who’ve actually read the bible, rather than merely thumping it, might recall the story of Jacob, who married two sisters, Leah and Rachel. Or Solomon, who had 700 wives and 300 concubines.) In America, in 1848, the Oneida community practiced “complex marriage” where every woman was married to every man in the community, and there was a so-called “Christian polygamy movement,” as late as 1994. Although Mormons have (formally) renounced it, polygamy persists in many parts of the Middle East to this day—among President Bush’s princely pals in Saudi Arabia, for example, and in Senegal, where an estimated 47% of marriages are “plural” or polygamous. There is even some evidence—admittedly disputed—that the medieval Church blessed same-sex unions.

What with Iraq, the recession, climate change, natural disasters, food shortages and gas prices, do we really have to replay these tired arguments about allowing Adam and Steve to file joint tax returns?

Sheila Suess Kennedy's blog | login or register to post comments