Eleven days ago, on May 17, the United States saw the 55th anniversary of the landmark Supreme Court decision Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka. The decision, which struck down previous rulings that established separate public schools for black and white students saying such a practice denied black children equal educational opportunities, helped pave the way for the American civil rights movement.
Now, more than half a century later, the nation is in the middle of another civil rights movement: the fight to legalize same-sex marriage.
No, gays and lesbians in the United States are not relegated to the backs of buses or forced to drink from separate drinking fountains. But their struggle to be recognized as no different from their straight fellow Americans – to no longer be seen as second-class citizens – is no less important than that of black Americans in the 1950s and ’60s. Nor is it without its share of violence – after all, Matthew Shepard was robbed, tortured, tied to a fence and left to die only 11 years ago.
On Tuesday, the California Supreme Court ruled to uphold Proposition 8, the same-sex marriage ban that California voters approved last year, as a constitutionally acceptable exercise of voters’ free will. The marriages of the estimated 18,000 same-sex couples who were wed last year will still be recognized.
The court said the measure should stand as an exercise of Californians’ sovereign right to amend their constitution. “It’s not the court’s job to decide if Prop. 8 was ‘wise or sound as a matter of policy,’ the majority found,” read a Tuesday Los Angeles Times article. According to the article, the court deemed the case as all about “the scope of the right of the people, under the provisions of the California Constitution, to change or alter the state Constitution itself through the initiative process.”
This right should certainly be upheld, as state constitutions, like the U.S. Constitution, are meant to be living, changing documents that adapt to best serve society as it, too, evolves and changes. But the provision of equal, federally granted rights to all citizens should not be able to be circumvented by popular vote.
Marriage should be legal for all or legal for none. The constitutional ban on same-sex marriage follows the exact same “separate but equal” philosophy the Supreme Court did away with back in the ’60s. Civil unions are not enough, and to suggest gays and lesbians should be satisfied with them is the same as suggesting that non-white people should have been happy to eat at their “own” restaurants and use their “own” restrooms, courtesy of Jim Crow.
We have all heard the argument that marriage is a religious institution that should uphold traditional heterosexual values. Frankly, this argument today borders on comical. To say nothing of the institution’s sacredness – or success rate – the separation of church and state makes such logic moot. If marriage is to carry with it legal benefits, as regulated by state or federal legislation, it should be restricted from carrying any religious connotations.
If, however, marriage is to be a religious (namely Christian) institution, why isn’t it restricted to only those individuals (namely Christians) who share traditional religious values? If gays and lesbians are to be kept from marrying because homosexuality is against traditional Christian teachings, then all Jews, Buddhists, Muslims, Hindus, Atheists – the list goes on – should logically be kept from it as well.
Fortunately, there are glimmers of hope to be found in Tuesday’s decision. Some see the recent Prop. 8 decision as good for same-sex marriage in the long run.
“The Court’s decision drives home that the future of gay rights lies at the ballot box and not in the courts,” writes The Yale Law Journal articles editor Aaron Zelinsky on The Huffington Post. “We should view the California Court not as opposing gay marriage, but rather as promoting public deliberation and democratic action on the subject of equal rights.” Given the strong support of younger voters, Zelinsky argues, same-sex marriage will, perhaps soon, be approved in California by ballot initiative – perhaps quite soon.
It would be better if the existence of millions of Americans’ inalienable rights were not up for debate in the first place. This battle was fought with legislation, such as the Civil Rights Act of 1964, decades ago. But it’s true that same-sex marriage, and marriage in general, will stand on sounder footing when enacted by the people rather than judicially imposed.
If the recent decisions in Iowa, Vermont and Maine are any indication, the popular adoption of same-sex marriage nationwide is just around the bend. It just can’t come soon enough.
[email protected]