Heterosexual Marriage Ban Next for California?

While California gays lick their wounds over ballot measure Proposition 8 passed Tuesday, which amends the California Constitution to define marriage as a heterosexual act, there are some who say this opens the door for what would surely be a controversial court finding.

"It's both a legal and moral domino," said SYOP law professor, Dan Webster. "As soon as heterosexual men and women began having heterosexual sex with each other, it should have come as no surprise that one day everyone would think they had a right to sex, including gays. Morally, the family values groups have seen sex as an after-marriage event. Ergo, e pluribus unum, it follows that even those who financially backed Yes On Prop 8 - Mormons, Catholics, Focus on the Family - would agree that those who have sex should only have it under the legal and moral tenets of marriage. Since under the Constitution there is no prohibition of sex, the only way to keep cetain segments of the public - like homosexuals - from getting married in their pursuit of happiness, is to prohibit marriage altogether, including for heterosexuals."

One group is taking it one step further, planning to place a proposition on the ballot criminalizing marriage. Referencing Article VIII of the Constitution - dropped from the formal document due to space concerns-an attorney for If We Can't Have It No One Can, a civil rights body that pursues Jeffersonian intent, said that Thomas Jefferson "clearly wanted all people to have the same rights in their pursuit of happiness."

"To ensure equality from what Jefferson called 'pissants who want to urinate over everyone else's freedoms,' Jefferson had called for Constitutional safeguards," said READ THE REST OF THE POTENTIAL LEGAL RAMIFICATIONS HERE

Award-winning TV writer, Steve Young, is author of "Great Failures of the Extremely Successful" (www.greatfailure.com) and blogs at the appropriately named steveyoungonpolitics.com

Comments

[PSM42]

Snide intros aside, this misses the HUGE affront to ALL California progressives, IMO. It will not stand.

[Perry Clease]

I am thinking a law that only marriages performed by the County Clerk are valid. Couples could then choose to have a religious ceremony should they still choose, but the actual marriage is a civil contract.

[noseysniper]

I actually think trying to get divorce banned would be the biggest eye opener there could be in this country as far as marriage goes. It'd show us who's REALLY serious about that whole sacred nature of marriage thing. ;)

[OpheliaNYC]

Although this will not occur, you do raise a very valid point. Perhaps those who fight for the "sanctity" of marriage should never be allowed a divorce. That would be very satisfying. :)

[cocodee]

great call!
Civil rights denied one group under any pretense is civil rights denied to us all.
Please keep in mind that this is not a "gay rights" issue. It is a civil rights issue. All people are allowed the same rights under the law!

[Clarknt67]

Join the Protest in NYC, UWS, Weds, 6:30 pm
http://digg.com/politics/Protest_at_the_Mormon_Temple_in_NYC_Wednesday_630pm

[footej]

Another simple tactic to call out this silliness. Ban divorce and annulment.

The Knights of Columbus will crap in their pants over that one.

[ScottCandage]

Steve,

Don't ban marriage. If you really want to see their heads explode, ban divorce.

[MagisterLudi]

This is it?! This the new strategy of GL community to legitimize its demands for rights?
"We're not chicken" and "we should ban all marriage"? This is reaching hallucinatory levels of silliness.

[Romulus]

I've been suggesting for several years now that the State only issue Civil Union certificates to everyone who wishes to legalize their relationships, whether it be opposite sex unions or same sex unions, and that all Civil Unions have the same legal rights. Leave marriage ceremonies to the churches. Let Civil Unions be legal relationships and let marriages be spiritual relationships. Separation of church and state.

It would be interesting for someone to take a nationwide poll on this proposal. I believe that a majority of those in the U.S. would be in favor of this.

[suejester]

I too have always said the state reconition of a union between two people gay or straight should all be civil unions...

I love to hear the response among the majority of the heterosexual population when it is said, all heterosexuals will now have to get civil unions, no more "marriage" licences will be issued.

Then we will see how "equal" civil unions are. I suspect there would be outrage in the heterosexual population.

[WASanford]

I’ve twice proposed, tongue in cheek to be sure, that California should eliminate the word marriage from its law, leaving its counties only the option of issuing “domestic contracts” rather than marriage licenses. If those morons, who can’t read a book and understand it, I’m referring to the Bible here, leaving themselves only the option of mindlessly following some guru or other, want to define the word marriage, then let’s let them and stop using their word altogether.

While I could not be more heterosexual, I see this injustice as a threat to my civil liberties and to those of my fellow Californians. Civil liberties are more important than majorities. We cannot commit to an injustice just because a majority of voters want to hurt someone who is unpopular or even hated unless that someone has committed a felony and harmed someone. Even then that person’s right to rehabilitate him/herself should be recognized by our community. Martin Luther King, Jr. recognized this principle in a letter he wrote while in the Birmingham jail that “an injustice anywhere threatens justice everywhere.” That’s why we owe it to ourselves and our posterity to unequivocally promote justice. In Chapter 5 of the book of Amos, and several other places in the Bible as well, we are told to allow justice to flow like a river and righteousness as a torrent. Let’s do that!

[clevelandchick]

The result of this battle for marriage should be to change the legal definition of relational contracts from marriage to civil union for all consenting adults entering such a contract. The church has no legal recourse in that event. If they want to perform denominational ceremonial marriage rites that carry no legal weight, only spiritual, they have that right.

If anyone in this process is guilty of destroying marriage it's these churches fighting to 'save' it. They are fighting a losing battle and they know it. Most Americans under 30 have no problem with gay marriage. Eventually the old bigoted curmudgeons will become marginalized, die off and it will become legal.

[VoxCanaille]

And the amendment will remain as a constant reminder. In the U.S. Constituion, the 18th amendment was a colossal mistake, and it will forever be a blight on an otherwise perfect document. Now California will have same thing, a blight that in a few years will also have the equivalent to the 21 amendment: "Oops, our bad"; forever a reminder to future generations about how selfish and short-sighted their ancestors were.

[Jane]

I'm actually for this. No state involvement in "marriage". Marriage is a religious concept, and so should be outside the purview of the government. All you get is a civil union, no matter who you are. All marriages are hereby rendered retroactively invalid and become civil unions. Civil unions are legally binding, but marriages are simply religious ceremonies that the state has no interest in promoting or denigrating.

[gaydm]

I respectfully say, we the people keep marriage as a civil contract, and keep religions out of it entirely. They can get a civil marriage license just like everyone else, or not. I do not see how they need to be involved in any case. You may, as a religious person go to the DMV and get a drivers license, after which you may go and do whatever, rain dance or spiritual ritual, you wish over that license. But it still is a drivers license issued by the state. No one will stop your religious group or organization from performing whatever ritual you wish over that marriage license. It just PROPERLY will remove it's involvement as a function of having that license.

[Halter]

As a heterosexual recovering catholic, I totally agree with you. Churches, non-profit clubs, witch doctors should all be able to sanction and host rituals related to marriage.

The government should have no opinion as to the morality or details of "marriage" or lack of marriage.

Those who want legal recognition of their relationship for the sake of children, property, etc , whether heterosexual or not, should be supported by legal governmentally recognized civil unions or civil divorces.

Marriage should not be defined or dealt with under the realm of government.

[gaydm]

I like Florida's ill advised, but perfect solution to ending marriage. Amendment 2 reads, "Inasmuch as marriage is the legal union of only one man and one woman as husband and wife, no other legal union that is treated as marriage or the substantial equivalent thereof shall be valid or recognized."

This amendment has DEFINED for Florida's courts that marriage is "ONLY" one man and one woman for a grand total of one marriage. No other legal union treated as a marriage, that means no hetero or homosexual unions as well, are to be valid.

That will end ALL forms of legal unions for all parties, not just gay but straight as well. Now Florida's courts will have to determine WHICH one man one woman shall forever be known as the ONE marriage. I would suggest that it be left as "Adam and Eve" not Adam and Steve.

[peterg76]

The funny thing is, if marriage is discriminatory, the natural legal remedy by the courts would be to rule marriage unconstitutional, not to expand the discrimination against single people.