Same Sex Marriage: A Basic Civil Right

In a strong editorial, the New York Times has come out squarely on the side of gay marriage and calling laws barring gays from marrying unconstitutional and discriminatory. No doubt fundies will be threatening to cancel their subscriptions - assume they subscribe in the first place. In addition to urging Judge Walker to strike down Proposition 8, the Times go on to state that states like New York need to stop the dithering and enact legislation allowing same sex couples to marry. To do otherwise, in my view, is to work to deliberately deny marriage's stabilizing influence and benefits from gays solely because we fail to conform to Christianist ideals of sexuality. Plain and simple, anti-gay legislation is religious based discrimination that the courts and legislatures need to have the courage to call illegal. Particularly, now that legitimate medical and mental health experts recognize that sexual orientation is not something changeable. Here are highlights from the Times editorial:
*
No one expects the ruling from Judge Vaughn Walker in Federal District Court to be the last word. The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in San Francisco, will have its say, and so, eventually, may the Supreme Court.
*
The testimony made abundantly clear that excluding same-sex couples from marriage exacts a grievous toll on gay people and their families. Domestic partnerships are a woefully inadequate substitute.
*
Defenders of Proposition 8 produced no evidence to back up their claim that marriage between same-sex couples would hurt heterosexual marriage. “I don’t know. I don’t know,” the defense attorney, Charles Cooper, said when asked for an explanation by the judge at a pretrial hearing.
*
The defense called only two witnesses. The first, Kenneth Miller, a professor at Claremont McKenna College, argued that gay people are a powerful political force, which was meant to support the claim that there is no need for enhanced judicial protection. He ended up admitting that gay men and lesbians suffer discrimination.
*
The other witness, David Blankenhorn, the president of the Institute for American Values . . . Upon questioning, he acknowledged that marriage is a “public good” that would benefit same-sex couples and their children, and that to allow same-sex marriage “would be a victory for the worthy ideas of tolerance and inclusion.” The net result was to reinforce the sense that Proposition 8 was driven by animus rather than any evidence of concrete harm to heterosexual marriages or society at large.
*
It’s not possible to know whether the final ruling in this case will broadly confront the overarching denial of equal protection and due process created by prohibiting one segment of society from entering into marriage. The Supreme Court has, in different cases, called marriage “essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men” and a “basic civil right.”
*
[T]here are actions that can be taken now. States like New York should not put off acting on legislation to legalize same-sex marriage. Last week, President Obama extended a modest package of benefits — including day care and relocation allowances — to all partners of federal employees. Congress has a duty to extend to same-sex partners the rest of the benefits that are enjoyed by federal workers whose spouses are of a different sex. It also needs to repeal the 1996 law that defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman.