The news of the Proposition 8 lawsuits came last night as I was addressing my Christmas cards. You know the ritual -- take a photo from the year, mail it to family and friends with holiday greetings. In past cards I've been parasailing, bungee jumping, and skydiving; and now, this year, the biggest "leap" of all -- getting married. My happy if monotonous routine of addressing, stuffing, sealing and stamping was interrupted by news of the latest battles over California's Proposition 8. Now we know that supporters were seeking to affirm the decision to ban same sex marriage, but it wasn't 'til Ken Starr appeared on the TV screen (wearing what appeared to be Jack Abramoff's black hat) that we learned an unsettling truth -- they actually want to go beyond the initiative banning future marriages and forcibly divorce 18,000 couples.
Now being a newlywed myself, I cannot imagine a county or court clerk calling my husband and me to inform us that the state had forcibly divorced us. Yet that's what Proposition 8 proponents now bring to the Supreme Court. Not just upholding a vote taking away "marriage" rights, but undoing a civil contract. So I wonder: instead of forced divorce in California, why not civil unions or civil marriages for all?
Now our Attorney General Jerry Brown fights forced divorce (arguing in part that the initiative was in fact a Constitutional amendment requiring a higher threshold for ballot placement and passage so should be nullified on procedural grounds). And we will be told repeatedly that while Proposition 8 proponents support civil unions for same sex couples, they must force divorce because same sex marriage violates their religious beliefs. That to me sounds like a great argument for rendering civil contract rights unto Caesar and marriage ceremonies unto God. Let loving, consenting adults form civil unions under a common law while clergy perform marriages for some of those couples under the covenants of their faith. Remove the term "marriage' from the civil code entirely, or utilize the term "civil marriage" in the civil code to delineate the rights and responsibilities of the parties to each other and the state . Either way, if this really is not about discrimination, then why not grant heterosexual couples the same rights being proferred for same sex couples?
As your own holiday mail arrives and you see happy loving couples posing in front of Christmas trees or surrounded by snowflakes or lighting menorahs, ask yourself: do you know how or by whom they were married? Does it matter to you that the couple has a civil marriage or a faith marriage? Does your answer change if the couple is gay or straight? In the spirit of the holidays, of peace and goodwill, rather than force divorce on some, why not seek common ground and civil rights for all?
Follow Christine Pelosi on Twitter: www.twitter.com/sfpelosi
Gay kids are killing themselves, GLBT people are beaten up or killed, denied housing, losing jobs...
We need to re-focus, let them have their marriages - w/ 50% divorce rates. IMO they can have the word.
It can be said that marriage encompasses all rights, but we're losing supporters.
It's time to help the kids, the jobless, & keep marriage in perspective.
Civil union is a relatively new civil word. Unless it is defined to mean marriage, providing someone a civil union does not automatically give them the rights of marriage.
This is particularly true when it comes to issues such as how will the civil union be viewed in other states, in other countries, and by the federal government as the word does not currently exist in the vocabulary upon which their laws were drawn.
To introduce a new word and give it the exact equivilance of a previous word throughout the state, the country, and the world is an exercise in futility bowing to the immaturity of those that cannot see the existing complexity of the meaning of the word marriage.
Add to that, laws such as DOMA that further obscure and minimize the possible impact of civil unions, you now face the real complexity of instituting what at first glance seems like a good solution to the gay marriage situation.
If it helps, it is only civil marriage that gays are asking for. As has always been true, religions are free to practice whatever exclusion, seperation, and sanctions they wish to on whatever group they have decided to single out at the time.
It is not about the legal terminology to them. It is about denying the right or access to marry in any form.
So the fight is a constitutional fight to determine whether marriage is a right for all between 2 consenting adults regardless of gender. Until marriage is defined as a CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT FOR ALL, the Prop 8 Proponents will continue to have legal precident to deny it to some (gays).
This fight is no different than any other constitutional assualt on the freedoms of a dissaffected class of people. And this fight will not end just because you change the name to civil unions or civil marriage.
To say that nobody is opposing civil unions is laughable.
If porn showing two men having sex gets a man "aroused," he is gay. It doesn't matter if Jesus is in his heart, it doesn't matter if he wants to be straight, it doesn't matter if he is a Wyoming Pastor.
Amusingly, most of the strongest supporters of Prop 8 are gay by that test...
how does one definitively prove that one is straight? the person living the life is the one who has to determine their sexuality. people being denied rights and discriminated against is one reason why people try to deny who they really are.
Look how strongly they reacted to Party 1 and Party 2. They were outraged that they couldn't say bride and groom.
In the end, they will continue to oppose equality until they are outnumbered by people who support it.
On the contrary, gays are not destroying the institution of marriage, gays are promoting the institution of marriage, by "GETTING MARRIED".
What the reglious right is advocating is for marriage as "THEY DEFINE IT".
It is time for Americans to stop allowing a certain population group (religious right) dictate the tenets of the American society.
That's what EQUAL PROTECTION means, y'all!
Categorically untrue. There is ample evidence of same-sex unions in ancient society.
And if that is your arguement, we may as well close down all churches except the Mormons. You would still have the right to worship in the Mormon fashion, same as everyone else. There is a reason teh Constitution does not contain the phrase "one size fits all".
On that basis alone the Supreme Court should strike it down as unconstitutional. The courts role is not to govern but to rule on existing law upon precedent. I know that sounds conservative but it's not it's just the established role set forth in the U.S. Constitution.
We The People is defined as "we..." vaguely on purpose.
Separation of church and state has nothing to do with the state referring to civil unions completed in a church.
Denying persons of the exact same legal authority and rights as another is unconstitutional. It's not up to the state to "define" the civil union, they have already, they call it a civil union or a contract. We The People call it "Marriage" because "Marriage is defined by Christians" already. The state did'nt do it. We did.
If your going to be an activist at least focus your effort enough so that the rest of the voting citizenry understand what it is you want to say. Either you want a civil union or you want to be called "married" because they are two different things all together and two different places to do it.
Dosmestic Partnership allows your company to deny health ins benefits if it is self-insured, as mnany larage companies are -- and you live together to have a domestic partnership, sounds ok, right? Except that we live in LA and if my partner gets that job in Silicon Valley we will live in different places legally and not be legally eligable for our DP anymore no matter how long we've been in it. Nice, huh?
Exactly right. The state has no business trafficking in anything remotely religious. Leave that to the professional priests.
Civil marriage should be a purely legal contract between any two people. If you want the religious gobble-de-gook, that's your business.
What our gay brothers and sisters want, I think, is acceptance. YOU ALREADY HAVE THAT! At least from the open minded people who matter. The others are worthless dirtbags, and you should just ignore them.
Btw, as a Christian -- I am gay and Christian, surprise! (you are not the only artiber of what Christianity is) -- I you might suggest you look again at what Christ taught about human dignity. I think we all equal and that is the ultimate point.
But not to throw a monkey wrench, or putting the cart ahead of the horse, who will be able to perform these civil marriages? People now go to clergy for both - will there need to be two ceremonies if we do this or can we still allow a clergy person to do both? What about those who probably don't want to bless a same sex union? Just thinking.
Let's call everything a "civil union", which can be preformed by clergy or clerks or justices, etc. -- clergy for the sake of ease. But the clear distinction of the "civil union" and the religious rite of marriage is what is needed to make things clear and it gives the right one less big talking point.
Simple.
This nonsense reminds me of a letter to the editor I once read that said: I know how to end the "abortion problem: practice birth control." Duh those against one are against the other that is the real problem. So it is with the "marriage" issue.
The state already legislates the terms of religious marriages, and that doesn't seem to impinge on church-state separation. So establishing a civil marriage contract for all, while continuing to recognize and regulate both religious and civl marriages, should work fine.
You want to get married by an institution that doesn't recognize same-sex unions? Fine, go to your favorite religion. You want to get married no matter what your sexual preference? Go to a judge or friendly religious official.
And you still would have some same sex marriages like mine that would be valid by ex post facto, which would piss off the right wing traditionalists, and all the heterosexual marriages. Only new unions would have the altered status. The difference could result in another sort of possible legal snafu.
if it had been a vote about slavery or segregation would you say the same thing?
The State has no role beyond enforcing marriage contracts and spousal rights. Any marriage recognized by the State is a civil union, that's what civil union means. There's no such thing as a State recognized marriage that isn't a civil union. Prop 8 seeks to deny non-hetero marriages the status of civil unions. It has no affect on marriage, though it does affect married couples.
Prop 8 isn't about protecting marriage. It isn't about religion and marriage. It isn't about marriages v. civil unions. It isn't about preventing gay marriage. It isn't about civil rights. It isn't about keeping a nonexistent traditional definition of marriage.
Its about bigotry. Its about discrimination. Its about ignorance and deceit. Its about politicians redefining "civil unions." Its religions redefining "marriage." Its about Gays redefining "civil rights." Its about ignorance and proponents and opponents lying.
We have "civil unions" in the form of "civil marriage". Why is it so hard for people to realize civil union is just a euphemism?
We also have marriages of all sorts, same-sex and opposite sex in churches and elsewhere.
The conflict is about full and equal recognition of same-sex couples, and anyone is crazy who thinks just changing a word will satisfy the proponents of anti-gay legislation.
That said, I am willing to do away with just about any word, granted we get full and total equality, and protection for our families. We are going at this one step at a time, and this is the step we happen to be at - court challenge. We will see how that goes then move to the next.
Saying it doesn't exist doesn't make it disappear. The fact is, we simply never questioned the definition of marriage until recently, on the grounds of "common sense."