|
Monday, March 14, 2005Gay Marriage in the news againWhen I saw the AOL headline, "Gay Marriage Ban Rejected," my first thought was, "Wow! I wonder where?" Then it occurred to me I hadn't heard of any special elections and my "wow" was replaced with "oh." Yup. A San Francisco Superior Court Judge (are you surprised yet?) ruled: It appears that no rational purpose exists for limiting marriage in this state to opposite-sex partners.Howzabout this? Because California has laws on the books specifically limiting marriage to being between a man and a woman. [And on NRO, it's noted that this law was enacted by a 60-40 vote of the people; I would have been in the 40%, but that would be the losing side.] The California Governor and legislature, if they so desire, can rewrite those statutes tomorrow, provided they're willing to face the voters. If they did so, I for one would support them. But a lot of other people wouldn't. Our elected officials, in deciding these matters, must respond to the will of those they govern. This judge, on the other hand, is a law unto himself. Because I favor gay marriage or at least something closely approaching it, I am naturally appalled at this latest ruling. In other contexts, it might be bold or visionary. But in the face of countless successful citizens' initiatives to ban gay marriage, such judicial tweaking of supposed unenlightened masses does not set the stage for greater tolerance but invites the assumption that gays are part of a liberal elite whose disdain for the rules and practices of everyday society requires yet more citizens' initiatives to more firmly close the door on a movement that should be making progress. If gays and lesbians truly want to make a dent in things, they should keep doing what they did during the Clinton years when the temptation to revolt seemed less obvious: live normal lives in relative harmony, leaving those who know them unable to understand the laws we now have on the books. Instead of pushing for more rulebreaking, gays should follow some classic rules to the tee. In forging gentleman's agreements vis-à-vis property, in writing careful wills, in living as "roommates" while quietly acknowledging a deeper bond but not forcing it upon people, gays could put society in the spotlight as judges decided whether to refuse to enforce binding contracts among adults and side-step honoring the departeds' last wishes while ordinary folks tried to explain just what business of theirs it was what people did after the doors were closed. To borrow a page from the gurus, if the gays want marriage rights, they should live as though they had them, voluntarily granting to their partners the privileges that come with married life and accepting the attendant restraints and responsibilities. In this way, they would force society to shift its attitudes as it became clear that they had less to answer for in wanting to marry than society does in wanting to deny grown people the ability to make their own decisions about how and with whom they wish to live. 
posted by gbarto at 2:37 PM |
Archives
|
Day By Day© by Chris Muir.Old TurkeyBlog here.
