PURE GOLD: SHOULD A BASIC CIVIL RIGHT BE SUBJECT TO A POPULAR VOTE?

 Why can’t these guys get married? Seriously, is there a rational reason?

People in California voted overwhelmingly for Barack Obama, then surprisingly supported the traditional and conservative position by backing Proposition 8, opposing gay marriage and reversing a decision by the State Supreme Court which had concluded that the ban on same-sex marriage was unconstitutional.

The Prop. 8 vote left about 18,000 gay and lesbian couples who married after the court decision in legal limbo, although it is hard to believe a state can cancel a marriage retroactively.

But the Prop. 8 decision in California, with similar results in Arizona and Florida, brought the marriage issue front and center, reinforcing the view that same-sex marriage may well be the hottest of the cultural wedge issues, even topping abortion.

Two factors in California helped pass Prop. 8. There was the conspicuous intervention of the Mormon Church, an irony considering that the Mormons have not always been devoted to the traditional one man-one woman marriage arrangement. But evidence indicates that Mormons contributed millions of dollars in support of Prop. 8, and also provided an army of “foot soldiers”, as the N.Y. Times put it, to defeat same-sex marriage in one of the nation’s most liberal states.

A second reason for the loss was the black and Hispanic vote, which went strongly for Obama, but provided clear majorities for Prop. 8.

The black vote was particularly telling with 70 percent opposing gay marriage, and with black women supporting Prop. 8 by 75 percent .

Aside from the fact that black churches are mostly conservative on the marriage issue, many black women are particularly upset by gay activity. Some believe that male gays limit the possibility of traditional marriage. Also, an HIV study several years ago indicated about a third of black men who were infected had had sex with both men and women, many of the women becoming innocent victims of AIDS, thus increasing the hostility towards men who engage in gay sex.

Of course, religion is the cornerstone of public antipathy towards gay marriage. Practicing Catholics, Evangelicals, Mormons and Orthodox Jews, among others, all band together to prevent gay marriage from becoming legal.

State constitutional amendments throughout the nation have been passed barring gay marriage and, in many instances, also banning civil unions.

Two states, Massachusetts and Connecticut, have decided through the courts that banning gay marriage was unconstitutional. But in every state that has held a public vote on the issue, the gays have lost.

A document issued by the Catholic Church is very clear on the subject:

“This is to let you know that SSM (Same Sex Marriage) is an abomination in the sight of God…”

In a report called Catholic Answers, the Church view on marriage indicates how entwined with religious belief the issue has become:

“Marriage is a conduit through which God’s grace flows to the couple and their children. Marriage is not just a private matter of emotion between two people. On the contrary, its success or failure has measurable impact on all society. Rational analysis yields solid objective reasons for limiting marriage to one man and one woman, reasons anyone can agree with on purely secular grounds.”

Evangelicals are on the same page. Their marriage and family maven is Dr. James Dobson, whose daily radio program is broadcast by over 7000 stations worldwide, and on 60 TV stations in the U.S.

He contends that every civilization has been built on heterosexual marriage, blames falling heterosexual marriage rates on the acceptance of same-sex relationships, and attacks “judicial tyranny” for legalizing same-sex relationships.

He insists, as do other Evangelicals, that being gay is a “learned moral choice,” and not the result of any genetic predisposition.

The arguments for full gay marriage rights are presented by the Gay-Straight Alliance, which handily spoofs the traditional contentions. For example:

“Heterosexual marriages are valid because they produce children. (Infertile couples and old people cannot get legally married because the world needs more children.)”

And “obviously gay parents will raise gay children (because straight parents only raise straight children)”.

With all this rancor, I used to feel the country might more likely agree on civil unions as a compromise solution, as was adopted in New Jersey.

People supporting civil unions contend that gays get the same rights given to heterosexual couples. But some gays don’t agree. On inheritance, they claim, the surviving gay partner is subject to heavy taxation on holdings held by the deceased. Not so in a marriage.

But more fundamental to gays is the view that civil union is “separate and equal” or “apartheid marriage.” Marriage, they say, should be considered a civil right, as the courts in Massachusetts and California agreed.

Meanwhile, the gays married in California await a decision by the State Supreme Court following the Prop. 8 victory.

Both Sen. Diane Feinstein and Attorney-General Jerry Brown of California feel the marriages will be validated, Feinstein told the Times’ Maureen Dowd: “You can’t redact it, you can’t blot it out. It’s so intrinsic to the Constitution that you cannot remove it by a vote of the people.”

Feinstein continues about gay marriage: “I started out not supporting it. The longer I’ve lived, the more I’ve seen the happiness of people, the stability that these commitments bring to their lives.”

I had thought for many years that gay acceptance of civil unions could be achieved much more rapidly and without the tumult that has followed the gay marriage issue from state to state. It might be noted that none of the serious Democratic candidates for President supported gay marriage and all publicly favored civil union—although Obama did not support Prop. 8 in California.

In New York, with Democrats now in control of both the governorship and both legislative houses, their early promise to vote on gay marriage appears to have been postponed for another year, testifying to the political heat generated by the issue.

But despite the struggle and current bitterness on the subject, I tend to sympathize with Feinstein’s position: A civil right should not be subject to a popular vote; that’s an important principle in a democratic society.

As Rep. John Lewis, a hero of the civil rights movement, told the Black Congressional Caucus recently:

“Not long ago, it was against the law for a black to marry a white in many parts of the south. Two people fall in love, it’s their business. It’s not the government’s business.”

Amen!