grim proposition

It had, in recent weeks, been my hope to write a series of endorsements, pro and con, for the various state propositions set to appear on the ballot in this election.  Per usual, the time ran away from me, and now I find myself sitting at my laptop the night before election day with the ticker on the clock hinting I’ve got time for one at best.  There’s been quite a bit said about Prop 8 in recent weeks, but I feel a need to have my say, for better or worse.

First, a bit of history.  In November 2000, the people of California passed Proposition 22, banning same-sex marriages in the state.  That initiative passed by a wide margin, nearly two-to-one.  But in May of 2008, the California State Supreme Court overruled it, decrying the logic on which it was founded, and declaring same-sex marriage a most basic civil right, and any ban on that right an infringement of California’s Constitution.

And here we are again with Prop 8, embroiled in another backwards argument about whether or not to accord basic equality to members of our society.  Proponents of Prop 8 predicate their defense of the measure on two major arguments.  The first is that the California Supreme Court subverted the people’s will in enacting same-sex marriage here in the state. 

If you agree that the court overstepped its boundaries in its decision, then, friend, I’d advise you read up on the history of judicial review in this country, a precedent that dates back to the age of Jefferson.  Simply put, it’s one of the most hallowed components of our three-branched government.  Simply put, the courts, chiefly the Supreme Court of each state and of the nation, reserve the right to roll back any law which counters the tenets of its Constitution.  This summer, the California courts decided that bigotry would no longer be codified into our principle documents.  And this is a major reason why the court system exists in America – to reflect our better nature, to protect the rights of a minority against the tyranny of a majority.

The second argument, though, is where we arrive at the crux of the issue.  Defenders of Prop 8 condemn the Supreme Court’s ruling and the burgeoning institution of gay marriage because they feel it undermines the traditional male-female model of marriage.  Now I want to respond to their logic.  But I can’t.  And why not?  Because this argument is totally and entirely without any intellectual merit.  There is not a single person who can make a reasoned case against gay marriage that doesn’t fall back on the circular logic of Judeo-Christian morality. 

The problem with codifying such logic into the state Constitution is that A) it violates self-evident rules of church and state separation, and B) more vitally, it makes no sense.  Opponents of gay marriage say that the marriage model of our past generations is preferable simply because it’s the traditional one.  But doesn’t history underscore this lesson: traditions are only as strong as the commonsensical values they instill.  No tradition is good in and of itself.  In a word, traditions change.  And change this one must, because conceptions of marriage has ceaselessly evolved over the years.  In fact, they’re surprisingly malleable.  For instance, whereas many cultures once practiced polygamy, most mainstream folks long ago decided the practice was cruel to women, objectifying, misogynistic.

My problem with Prop 8 is that it’s built on an intellectual hill of sand.  Proponents say marriage should stay the way it is because that’s how it’s always been.  But what kind of reasoning is that?  Maybe we need to alter our thinking, change our habits, evolve our institutions. 

Because at the end of the day, Prop 8 represents a widespread and disconcerting violation of rights, and that’s a frightening precedent to leave our children.  In a democracy, the rule of the majority attains legitimacy only in so far as that majority ensures the rights of its minority members.

And in a narrower sense, let me put it this way: if you’re uncomfortable with same-sex marriage, then hey, it’s a free country, no problem – don’t marry a member of your sex.  Just don’t vote for a law that tells other people they can’t make up their own mind about who they love.

But for those who don’t respect those arguments and still adhere to this tradition-for-tradition’s sake attitude, consider the economic dimensions of the issue.  Experts estimate that the state of California will earn millions in tax revenue from same-sex unions in coming years.  At a time when our state faces a terrifying budget shortfall, can we really vote against that revenue?  And what about the expected boost to the economy from all these news marriages?  Hell, it’ll spawn a whole new industry at precisely the moment we’re sliding into recession.

At the end of the day, it isn’t the duty of the populace to legislate a narrow, hollow morality that abridges rights.  Any regulation that violates our freedom should be entered into with great caution and rock-solid purpose.  But in life as in baseball, a tie goes to the runner.  If you don’t see the logic in further regulation, if it exploits our outmoded prejudices, if its true intent is clouded in hidden agendas, we’ve got to slap it down.