Finding Middle Ground on Same-Sex Marriage

Last year, I dropped a post praising California for overturning a ban on gay marriage, but before I half turned around, Prop 8 comes out of nowhere and shuts the hopes and dreams of men and women who love differently down decisively -- and pretty much totally violates the Constitutional dictum of equal protection under the law.

The evangelicals praised themselves (way more than they did Jesus), the gay community bit its tail and civil rights took a back door to ideology. Since then, plans have been under way to bring the whole issue back to the California Supreme Court as judges have heard new arguments on the issue and are expected to issue a decision within 90 days.

Now, in my initial post on this issue, I offered a compromise, simply saying that government should not make decisions on who can and can't get married, that only civil unions between consenting adults should be legally recognized, be they between the same sex or the opposite sex. Outside of that, marriage should be a bond facilitated by individuals and their cultural or spiritual institutions, which would make rules toward marriage as they see fit. ...

Well, as it turns out, I wasn't alone in my position. People on both the left and right see granting civil unions only as a way to finally end this exhaustive debate that only serves to put money in the pockets of lawyers, lobbyists and preachers.

Now, I'm the last one to tell someone that what their faith teaches is wrong, even if I disagree with it. But what I, and many others, argue is that government has no business telling you who you can't devote your life to. One group advocating a ban on same sex marriage might as well be advocating a ban on interracial marriage or marriage between people who are five years apart.

If that group wins in court, then the rights of gays who want to marry will be shattered. If they lose in court then they'll feel that the law does not respect their point of view. So what's the solution: Get the government out of the marriage business.

Truth is, this is not a new idea at all. It has been floating around the political stratosphere for a few years now and has been embraced by both liberal gay activists and the most conservative right-wingers alike. The reason is that it satisfies both parties in that it lets two people have full legal representation as a union when it comes to health benefits, property, taxes etc. And it removes the government from what many see as a moral argument.

From my perspective, un-defining marriage simply adheres to the 14th Amendment, which states:

No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

This is a law that applies to all of us -- straight, gay, black, white (and everything in between); able-bodied or disabled; Christian, Muslim, Jew, or Zoroastrian. That's why I like living in America.

So if your belief is that gay folks are committing an abominable sin and will face fiery judgment from their maker, well then that's your right. But co-opting the law to force people to do your bidding is the real abomination. When we reject the government's ability to define who can get married, that puts the power in the hands of those who are actually involved in the marriage.

For the rest of you, it's none of your damned business.