"How many legs does a sheep have, if you call a tail a leg?
"Four. Calling a tail a leg does not make it one."
--Old riddle.
We have no objection to gays and lesbians getting married. If that's what they want to do, more power to 'em.
Now, on to a discussion of yesterday's California Supreme Court ruling.
For the benefit of our out-of-state and/or clueless readers, the background:
Back in November, while the rest of the country (and, indeed, most of California too) reveled in the election of our first African-American President, the Dross State witnessed its own personal civil rights setback. A group of right-wing lunatics. . . sorry, crypto-fascists. . . no, wait, that's not it. . . ah, yes, "concerned citizens" somehow managed to convince a majority of this otherwise enlightened state to pass Proposition 8.
Prop 8 amended the state's constitution to establish that "marriage" could refer only to a union between a man and a woman (presumably ONE man and ONE woman, although the indefinite article leaves a bit of wiggle room). This act overturned judicial rulings earlier in the year that gave same-sex couples the right to marry. As you would expect, the "No on 8" forces were stunned by the results, and they sued to overturn the overturning. Their argument essentially hinged on whether Proposition 8 was an amendment or a revision to the state constitution. If the latter, then the ballot initiative itself would be unconstitutional, as a revision can only be placed on the ballot by a 2/3 vote of the state legislature (as opposed to a simple petition drive).
Are you following?
OK, so, yesterday, the courts ruled that Prop 8 was, indeed, an amendment, and, as such, it was legitimately placed on the ballot. Therefore, the election results stood, and the constitutional amendment passed.
Crypto-fascists - 1 (well, 2, actually), liberals - 0.
Sad result, but the Solipsist would like to ask everyone to relax.
Relax, everyone.
First, this was not a ruling against gay marriage. It was a ruling about an electoral procedure. The court itself is largely sympathetic to same-sex couples, as evidenced by the apparently contradictory fact that the court, at the same time it upheld Prop 8, also declared that those couples who had gotten married before Prop 8 went into effect were still married.
Second, same-sex couples today have the exact same rights they had yesterday, except for the right to call their unions "marriages." According to an article in today's Times, Karl Manheim, a professor at Loyola Law School Los Angeles says, "claiming that the word 'marriage' is essentially symbolic is like telling black people that sitting in the back of the bus is not important as long as the front and the back of the bus arrive at the same time."
Well, no, it's not like that at all.
Prof. Manheim correctly suggests that both the use of the word 'marriage' and the forcing of blacks to sit in the back of the bus are essentially symbolic acts. What Manheim and others must remember, though, is that, in the case of the segregated south, symbols took the form of actions--actions that physically manifested underlying racist attitudes. On the other hand, whether we call a loving union a 'marriage' or not remains confined to the realm of the symbolic. Words are symbols, and what we're arguing about here is words.
To put it another way, let's say the court had overturned Prop 8. Then, presumably, same-sex couples could rejoice that they could say they were "married." And the supporters of Prop 8? Would they suddenly start referring to their gay and lesbian neighbors as married couples, inviting them over for brunch and bridge? Doubtful. You see, in their eyes, these people can NEVER be married, no matter what a court or a legislature or an executive decides, because to them, a marriage is a union between one man and one woman.
Calling a tail a leg will never make it a leg. At the same time, though, if you choose to call a tail a leg, and all your friends call a tail a leg, and the vast majority of people around the world understand that you call a tail a leg and respect your decision to do so. . . . You see where we're going?
Which brings us to, third, it's only a matter of time before same-sex couples have the right to marry in California. For Pete's sake, Iowa--IOWA!!!--has legalized same-sex marriage. Does anyone really think California is going to let itself be out-liberaled by flyover country for long? The trend in society is toward more openness, more tolerance, more live-and-let-live. If the "No on 8" crowd wants the Solipsist's advice (and how could they not?), they should simply take their cue from the court. Get a referendum on the next ballot that amends the constitution to repeal this amendment. And while they're at it, maybe they could get an amendment on the ballot to rationalize California's budget process? Probably too much to ask.
Look, if it were up to the Solipsist, the state would get out of the marriage business altogether. Civil unions for everybody (if that)! If you want to get married in a church or a mosque or a synagogue or a Moonie compound, go with your God. What does the government know about love anyway?
In the meantime, same-sex couples, you're married! The best thing you can do is keep insisting on it, keep holding your wedding ceremonies, keep referring to your husbands and wives and in-laws until the whole thing becomes the most common-place, unremarkable thing in the world.
There's absolutely nothing wrong with a 5-legged sheep!
No comments:
Post a Comment