California’s Ghey Marriage Law
June 27th, 2008asshats, gay marriage, God, politics
The history of gay marriage in California is a long one, and is by no means over. Today, Arnold Schwarzenegger announced that he wasn’t going to recognize the recent round of gay marriages, effectively vetoing gay marriage.
Now, before you get all mad at Arnold, remember that this is what the voters wanted. His job is to enact what the voters want, and he can’t just do whatever her wants without the voters approval. Most people seem to think of California as being this wildly liberal state, but that’s not true. In fact, geographically, California is mostly Republican. Along the beach life is good, people love each other. When people get too far away from the water they dry out, start hating everything, and become Republicans. Sad but true.
Do I, as a bible-reading, Jesus-loving Christian think that gay marriage should be legal? Nope. I don’t think gay marriage, or any other kind of marriage should be legal. Marriage is between two people who love each other and God Almighty. In many ways I feel the government over steps its bounds when it begins to interfere with the ways in which people love each other. Love is God’s domain, end of story.
Since getting rid of the government’s tainted influence on the sanctity of marriage doesn’t seem to be a very popular idea, I am in favor of legalizing gay marriage. There’s a raging debate amongst biblical scholars on this issue, but those who read the bible carefully will note that Jesus himself never condemned homosexuality. Therefore, it’s not in conflict with my religion to be in support of gay marriage.
I’ve followed the dabate closely and it all boils down to fear vs. love. Someday I hold out hope that we’ll look back on this time in American history as the beginning of a breakthrough for human rights. Right now, however, there’s still a lot of work to be done.
I remember Prop 22. It was included on the ballot in the first election that I was old enough to participate in. As I recall, prop 22 was one of many similar bills currently being voted on in many states across the country. Also, if I recall correctly, it was mainly one conservative group that was the main financier and proponent of bring these bills to the same ballot as the general presidential election. It’s not to hard to draw the line that shows that a goal of theirs was also to bring out the republican voting base using fear tactics a la Nixon. OK, I’m now completely off the subject and on to the subject of politics somehow, but I’m just trying to say that people’s fear and ignorance (which is bad enough already) and be easily manipulated to allow the powers that be institute their own personal monkey president. I had a history teacher once say that great movements in civil rights seem to happen about once every hundred years. If that’s the case, then we have at least another forty years to go of this childish crap. Everyday I wake up and hope that people will grow up and learn a bit faster.
BTW, I voted no on Prop 22.
when i stop to think about it (which i don’t do too often, makes my head want to go all ’splodey), i think, how is this possible that we have officially sanctioned discrimination against a minority group? what if we took the phrase “gay marriage” and substituted “interracial marriage” or even “non-white marriage”. let’s not forget that in slavery days marriage was not permitted amongst slaves. but since most if not all cultures recognize the importance of a ceremony of betrothal, their alternative was to “jump de broom”. these unions were recognized by everyone who really mattered, i.e., the friends, family, and community. it was not, however, a legal union, because the parties involved were not legally recognized as having the same inalienable rights as their white counterparts.
i just don’t see how we can reconcile denying gays the right to legally recognize their unions. and while you may object to the government’s role in certifying the sanctity of marriage (which i also object to), realize that since they’ve done that, it is a vital part of that commitment now. without it, life partners forfeit the rights to make crucial decisions in time of medical emergency, to share insurance, so many things that are vital to protecting our well-being. very basic rights. and we are denying these to individuals who are different from the majority.
this is just so abhorrent to me, it makes me crazy, and when i hear the asshats with their wringing of hands & gnashing of teeth, it makes me want to scream. or cry. or puke. or some combination thereof.
great post!
I think it would be a great thing to get to the nuts and bolts of ’separation of church and state’ and only have the government recognize civil unions. Anyone who wants something specific to their faith could have their big or small ceremonies, or whatever they want/need to make them feel like their higher power has recognized them. It’s so simple, it sadly will never work.
For myself and my husband, we only got married to protect our rights as a couple. We would have been perfectly content with signing a paper telling the government ‘hey, we’re legally responsible for and to each other now!’, and then having our ‘Spaceballs’ wedding ceremony. We got as close as we could to that by having a family friend perform the ‘real’ marriage in private a few hours before what was real to us.
With all the back and forth on recognizing gay marriage or not, at least one positive thing came out of it for the huge company I work for. Even though we’re self-insured (which basically means they can snub their noses at what states say they should do, such as recognize gay marriage), because we pointed out the discriminatory pitfalls of their initial reaction of ‘Oh no, we’re not going to let same-sex couples cover each other on our medical plan (even though our Summary Plan Description clearly says if it’s a legal marriage, they can do it…)!’ they met us in the middle, and will now recognize domestic partnerships. I think that’s a step forward, because it’s then not just a same-sex couple benefit, but a good thing for those opposite-sex couples who live together, but choose not to get married. In Washington state that will benefit at least two of our employees that we’ve had to turn down before, because they did the paperwork to have the state recognize them as domestic partners, but that still didn’t constitute a ‘legal marriage’.
While I don’t consider myself a Christian, I definitely feel in touch with my spiritual side, and strongly believe in a power greater than myself. I also feel very strongly that each person’s faith and spirituality should be unique, and honored. It boils down to respecting each other, and being mature enough to say ‘I don’t agree with you, but that doesn’t mean you’re wrong.’ Hopefully we’ll keep making strides as a community to make that the standard we go by.
Great post, Julie! We may not agree on all points, but we agree on the most important things.
Here’s what I have a problem with. There are times when an elected official has to do something unpopular because it’s the right thing. There’s a reason that Eisenhower had to deploy troops to escort the first black students at Little Rock High School, overriding the governor’s deployment of the Arkansas National Guard to bar black students from entering. This was against the will of the voters in Arkansas, and an unpopular decision. But it was the right thing to do.
Governor George Wallace personally stepped in front of two black students to stop them from going to college at Foster, only moving when US Marshals forced him to.
So, what am I bringing up two cases involving segregation? Because it was unpopular to allow Blacks the same rights as Whites in the South, but strong elected officials over-rode the will of the people. For the betterment of our nation, in my opinion. And, I reckon, the opinion of the majority of Americans.
The legislature, elected by the same people Schwarzenegger claims to represent, voted to enact this law. It wasn’t just three gay guys on a street corner. It was enacted into law through the legal legislative process. Schwarzenegger is doing something to appease his party and Republican voters. He’s not doing this for the good of his people and his state. He doing it because he’s a pandering coward.
And that’s all I have to say on the matter.
@sherri
Thanks so much for stopping by and I totally agree with you on respecting other people’s beliefs. I tolerate your heathen husband, don’t I?
@dotlizard and honest ape
You guys bring up a really interesting point about race and sex in this country. The United states is finally coming to a point where is doesn’t publicly condone racism, but on matters of sexuality we’re still centuries behind. Not to go on too much of a feminist rant here, but I really believe that many of the problems we have respecting the various manifestations of sexuality in this country are due to the presiding powers– largely heterosexual males and females who act like men.
As far as Schwarzenegger is concerned, well, I like him about as much as I’ve ever liked any conservative leader. He’s done some good things and some bad things for California, but I agree that he’s just pandering to the current position of his party here. It was pretty cowardly to do what he did, but a larger issue is why so many people in California would vote to suppress human rights in the first place. I understand a nut job here and there (after all, Cali is the land of the fruits and nuts) but the MAJORITY? I can’t understand or explain that.
I had to read this article twice before I felt ready to comment on it.
I must say very good balanced article. You bring up the most overlooked concept in this whole debate, which is marrige is a contract between two people and God. You can be married without signing a single document. One of the defects of the English language is we have single words which define multiple concepts like the word love. The Greeks had four or five, i love my brother or friend Philia, I love my wife or girlfriend eros, Love in genral or all encompasing love, all giving Agape you get the point. I feel that marrige a word with multible meanings a civil union is a legal contract between a couple and the goverment ensuring certain rights. Gay folk should have that option like everyone else and if they want to call it marriage so be it it takes nothing away from the private contract heterosexuals who adhere to a religion have between them and God. When people talk about the sanctity of marriage they are speaking about the God based contract, so if people like homosexuals who some christian find to be sinners are not allowed to be married shouldnt the same rule apply to atheist, and pagans? Anyway I hope you get my point which is I agree with your summation, Look forward to more bloggy goodness from you. Peace out
@mortalwind
Thanks so much for voicing your opinion on this! I know that you and I differ on a lot of things, and I was hoping you would comment. I agree that homosexuals being able to marry takes nothing away from heterosexual marriage. I find it hilarious when people who have no problem lying to or cheating on their spouses think the institution of marriage would be ruined if gay marriage was legal. Wait, what?? Marriage IS sacred, but a lot of people have a funny idea of what constitutes sacred.
Hey, the plugin works! Hooray!