Geodog

Stop Bush from desecrating the Constitution and let love speak its name

Once again I was planning to spend my evening writing time organizing and writing up my notes about ETech, but this time I find myself compelled to write about the newest abomination visited upon the American people and our democracy by George Bush and Karl Rove. Like some other people, I am not particularly enamored of the institution of marriage, which has as its foundation the transfer of a woman and her property from her father to her husband's custody, usually in return for property. Marriage is not an institution that has historically been very friendly to women, and for myself I personally prefer a version of civil union. When I read about San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom's decision to order the city clerk to grant marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples, I had doubts about it, fearing that politically, it was tactically unwise, and that Dan Gillmor and Lawrence Lessig were right that legally, it was a very shaky proposition to order city officials to break the law, no matter how asinine the law was (although see the principled conservative Volokh arguing that Newsom was legally within his rights to uphold the constitution over the statute).

However, in the days since Newsom's decision I have been brought to tears several times by the many wonderful pictures and stories of the couples who went to extraordinary lengths to make it into the San Francisco City Clerk's office to have their love and commitment solemnized and officially recognized. My heart was also moved by the outwelling of support from around the world for these couples who were waiting in line, sometimes for days in the rain. It was one of San Francisco' finest moments. The stories made me proud to live in the Bay Area. If you haven't already, read the some of the stories 1 2 3 4 and look at the pictures 1 2. 3 4 5 6 7, and watch the fantastic flash movie of the couples just after they are married that someone has already made. Their words and faces say more than I ever could.

Then yesterday that miserable failure in the White House decided to take advantage of the situation in San Francisco for political advantage, playing politics with love and using people's fears to divide our nation and set citizens against each other. He showed his contempt for our most fundamental civic document, the foundation of our political system, The Constitution of the United States, by calling for an amendment to deny same sex couples official recognition. Not that it is the first time he has denigrated the Constitution, but I have nothing but contempt for someone who would deface the Constitution for temporary political advantage. Luckily it seems like this time even some of his most fervent supporters have finally revolted in disgust, and congressmen and congresswomen seem less ready to deface the constitution than they were in the case of the Patriot Act. And the most recent poll shows that while the majority of Americans oppose gay marriage, they also oppose (48%-41%) a constitutional amendment forbidding states to permit gay marriage.

I confess that I don't understand the opposition to homosexual marriage. As a Canadian politician is reported to have said "If you're against same-sex marriage, don't marry someone of the same sex." I've attended two weddings of same-sex couples. One was as silly and giddy as a heterosexual marriage by an Elvis impersonator in Las Vegas. The other was as solemn and beautiful as a Catholic high mass. In both cases, the marriages are still going strong after 10 years (considerably better than the 7.2 years of the average heterosexual marriage), and have withstood severe fluctuations in health and wealth, as well as the constant stress of a large part of society's rejecting them and their love. I know the relevant biblical passages that some argue condemn homosexuality, but a Baptist Minister in Texas I like to read, Real Live Preacher, did a fantastic job putting them in context in his 2 wonderful essays last year. If you think that the Bible condemns homosexuality, I suggest you read it. However, even if after reading the Preacher's essays it you still believe that the Bible says that homosexuality is sinful, what does that have to do with civil marriage? Religions are free to marry (or refuse to marry) anyone they want. Civil marriage isn't a religious affair -- indeed, the orthodox of many religions don't recognize marriages that are not performed by religious leaders. As far as I can see, the opposition to letting gays and lesbians marry is the same as that of letting them serve openly in the military -- the offense is their being open about their love for each other. What societal interest does refusing the let them speak their love aloud serve?

Perhaps Anna Quindlen said it best, in a column I read after finishing the first draft of this essay:

In a recent sermon, Cardinal Edward Egan of New York, who somehow managed for a long time to contain his public outrage at pedophiles in the priestly ranks, decried the notion of same-sex marriage and referred to "the desecration of something sacred." The marriages we're talking about are civil marriages, which are so short of being sanctified in the eyes of the church that it will scarcely recognize their existence if you are Roman Catholic. And in a secular nation, why should church leaders be required to acknowledge civil marriage or, for that matter, be attended to when they pass judgment on what they will not acknowledge? Let them police the rites they have the right to regulate.

Comedians have made jokes about the gay-marriage controversy along predictable lines: why shouldn't they have the same right to be miserable that the rest of us have? In a soon-to-be-published book, "Gay Marriage: Why It Is Good for Gays, Good for Straights, and Good for America," Jonathan Rauch ... turns that offhanded ridicule of the institution on its head. In few books about matrimony will you read descriptions that so powerfully evoke the married state as a blessing for human beings. It is the yearning of the exile, the hunger of the disenfranchised. Even the dedication packs a wallop: "For Michael. Marry me, when we can." To characterize this sort of devotion as desecration is reprehensible. Anyone who defines marriage largely in terms of what happens in bed has never been married. Which may explain the Catholic Church's official reaction.

I can understand that social mores change slowly, and that enlightenment comes in steps, but I have also personally witnessed the damage that it does to someone to require them to hide part of who they are and how they feel, under threat of legal or social sanction. I understand that some religious people feel very strongly about the use of the word marriage. I could support deciding as a society that any ceremony done by a religious institution will be called marriage, and any done by civil authorities will be called a civil union, and that civil unions would be available to any two people, and who could get married would depend on the rules of the religious denomination (which would mean that religious denominations that support gay marriages will have them). But to enshrine the damage that our society currently inflicts on people who love people of the same gender in the Constitution would be an obscenity, almost as bad as the original Constitutional obscenity of defining African-Americans as property.

I intend to work hard to prevent this desecration of our constitution, and urge all readers to do likewise. I like BurningBird's suggestion that we urge our lawmakers who support this foul amendment to add its logical corollary, and include as part of the amendment a provision making divorce unconstitutional. Billmon has discovered a way that the Bush Campaign will help us communicate our thoughts to newspapers throughout the country, and I suggest that we make use of it, as well as the more customary ways of communicating with our representatives. If you have trouble drafting a letter, LambdaLegal and HumanRightsCampaign both have suggested text. Both are good organizations to support financially, or you could always buy Derek Powazek's Justly Married poster, all proceeds going to www.dontamend.com.

All photos except Justly Married copyright the San Francisco Chronicle. Click on the thumbnails I made to go to the full sized versions at SFGate.com

Posted by Geodog at February 26, 2004 03:15 AM | TrackBack