By Jessie Fillingim
While the nation chose a Democratic president, the conservative voice remained strong as states passed bans on gay marriage and adoptions by unmarried couples. On Tuesday, Nov. 4, California, Arizona and Florida superceded the judicial system by each passing a state constitutional amendment defining marriage as only between a man and a woman.
In California, the struggle to define marriage continues as gay rights advocates challenge whether Proposition 8, which states, “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California,” was properly enacted. If an amendment “substantially alters the basic governmental framework” of California’s constitution, the proposition must first be passed by two-thirds of the Legislature. The legal status of same-sex marriage in California may change again in coming months, if the court finds that the amendment was not properly enacted.
Opponents of same-sex marriage counteract efforts to preserve the sanctity of marriage by causing an inconsistent legal status. If traditional marital values are to be preserved, the rights of same-sex couples to marry must remain stable.
Many individuals who are against same-sex marriage are also pro-life. Anyone who opposes abortion should be in favor of alternatives to abortion, such as adoption. Marriage provides a way to legitimize relationships. If same-sex couples are allowed to legitimize their relationship, thousands of homes will be open to adopting children in need.
Even though allowing same-sex couples to adopt seems to provide hope to our hopeless failure of a foster system, on Nov. 4, Arkansas joined Utah, Mississippi and Florida in banning same-sex couples from adopting children.
Conservative voters negate overwhelming evidence that children of same-sex couples are as well-adjusted as heterosexual couples. This ignorant reaction stems from the black-and-white view that certain marginalized groups of people seek to deteriorate religious family values. Same-sex couples do not aim to erode family values but to preserve tradition.
In a nation that boasts goals for bipartisanship, the homophobia of religious conservativism thwarts progressive efforts. Involving religion in political choices seems to cause “faith-voting,” blindly choosing a candidate or position solely because of religious influence. Apart from religious reasons, why would a majority find that same-sex marriage should be prevented?
When contemplating a law that deprives individuals of a governmentally declared right, we must not strip these rights without an overwhelming majority of the population. Only 52 percent of the population imposed a law that may invalidate the 18,000 same-sex marriage licenses that California has issued in recent months.
Some argue that same-sex couples should be denied marriage, but allowed civil unions. They claim that these unions provide the same rights and benefits of marriage. But if we extend this logic to other individuals who have historically been denied personhood, the argument falls through. For example, if people of color were only permitted civil unions, the blatant racism would be obvious.
Offering civil unions as a marital replacement highlights the public’s homophobia. We hear the religious right crying, “separate but equal,” reviving an antiquated and hateful sentiment.
Another fear that proponents of Proposition 8 raise is that if the state allows same-sex marriage, other sexual “perversions” will be protected by the state. Pedophiles will be allowed to wed children. Bestiality will be permitted. I believe it is quite a stretch to compare two consenting adults to individuals who exploit others for pleasure. Advocates of same-sex marriage often do not seek to change laws; they seek to logically interpret laws permitting marriage to include all adults capable of consenting.
Before voting on a proposition that could infringe on the rights of others, I believe all voters have a duty to consider the overall effect of their decision. Instead of listening only to the counsel of religious figures, we weigh the harm we would personally experience to the harm that others would collectively suffer. As far as same-sex marriage goes, I cannot comprehend how an individual would be so harmed by another’s private life as to restrict the free exercise of their right to marry.
Jessie Fillingim is a second-year law student. You may e-mail her at [email protected].
