Like a great many Americans, I wept tears of utter joy this week. The election of Barack Obama was such a monumental moment in our history, and something I am so proud to say I helped make happen. Yet, the next morning, my joy was tempered by a profound sadness over the passage of Proposition 8 here in my state. How is it possible that my state, that boasts of such diversity and openness, could possibly amend our constitution to enforce discrimination? I just don't understand it. Our nation can be proud, and celebrate that it has, at last, broken the barrier of color, and elected a man to the Presidency, because of his immense qualifications and in spite of his skin. The profound irony is that as we celebrate that accomplishment, we simultaneously, at the state level at least, chose to uphold discrimination and bigotry in our laws.
For those who don't know or are confused about Proposition 8, the text was quite simple. Proposition 8 asked voters to amend the state constitution to read: Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California. That's it. Proponents of Proposition 8 wanted to change the constitution to strip marital rights from gay couples. The constitution is supposed to protect civil rights, not take them away.
Marriage predates religion. Marriage existed as a social contract in ancient civilizations, and in the case of the Greeks, same sex marriage was considered equal. In fact, the Christian Church did not outlaw same sex marriage until sometime in the early 4th century. So to claim that marriage is a religious institution first is incorrect. In our country, marriage is in all cases a civil right granted by the government. Couples are free to also have their marriage sanctioned/blessed by their particular religion, be it Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, etc. but it is not a requirement in our society for marriage, because we are a nation that recognizes many religions, as well as the right to not have a religion. If we hold to the concept that marriage is only a religious institution, you necessarily exclude all heterosexual couples who do not participate in a religion. We don't do that, because marriage is first a civil right bestowed by the government. That is to say, you can be married by the state without being married by the church, and it is still a marriage like any other, but you cannot have a marriage by the church without it also being recognized and approved by the state. Each of those marriages, the one sanctioned in a church, and the one not, is equal.
In the case of Prop 8, and other similar legislation, people of deeply held religious conviction are asking the state, the secular government, to apply a religious litmus to the marriage contract. They are in essence asking for the state to apply religious belief to all who seek marriage, regardless of whether all who seek marriage share that religious belief. This clearly oversteps the separation of church and state, and the proponents of this legislation know that, which is why they hide their intent behind fear and lies. This brings forth the next great irony of this election. The "Yes on 8" campaign was funded mostly by the Mormon Church in Utah. (Don't get me started on another state getting into my state's business, that's a whole other can o'worms). How ironic that the a church whose foundations were forged in the fires of discrimination would now turn and exert that very same discrimination upon another group of people. I'm not even sure irony is the right word. Perhaps hypocrisy is the more apt term. Adding to the hypocrisy is that a "christian" movement couldn't even be bothered to run an honest campaign. They swayed voters with lies and misinformation. One of the arguments they made is that churches would be forced to conduct gay marriage ceremonies or else lose their tax-exempt status. It is ridiculous on its face, or course, but that is the argument they made. The court decision last May that said gay marriage was protected under our constitution specifically addressed the religious freedom of churches and assured them that they will not be compelled to conduct any acts antithetical to their teaching. In the short time that marriage has been recognized as a basic right afforded to all, not a single instance of churches being forced to accept something against their teachings has materialized. The government does not and will not have the authority to tell churches who they can and cannot marry within their walls. If it could, Catholics who marry non-Catholics would have had a field day in the courts many times over. No, churches are not in any way having their doctrine dictated to them. They are still free to say no to whomever they deem unworthy of their blessing.
Worse than the false charge about government intrusion into religion, the Yes on 8 campaign lied about what children learn in school. California curriculum has not changed since marriage was recognized as a right for all. It will not change when it is once again recognized as a right for all. Sadly, these tactics of lies are typical in any election, but what does it say that a group of Christians feels compelled to engage in this kind of deceit? I am reminded of Mohandas Gandhi, when he said "I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ. "
Eventually, I have faith that the rights of all people to marry the one they love will be recognized legally, if not accepted by all. In the meantime, this Christian will be happy to know that at the National level, we have overcome at least one barrier. Bigotry is not dead, but it has been stricken a blow. I can take some joy in that, and continue to have faith that the rights of all people to love and marry who they choose will be the next barrier overcome.
