Depending on how you feel about gay marriage, Gavin Newsom is either a pioneer or a rat.
Newsom is the new mayor of San Francisco.
Earlier this week he defied state law by having city clerks remove gender references from local marriage forms. Newsom said that San Francisco’s marriage regulations violated the state Constitution, which “leaves no room for any form of discrimination.”
If you tend to favour Newsom as a rodent, add my name to your list.
Denying same-sex couples the right to marry under the law is discrimination.
If Newsom’s bold move is regarded by conservative critics as a political stunt; then it must be regarded by liberals as an impassioned stirring of the civil rights pot.
How can a country that fought so passionately against discrimination of race and color turn a blind eye to discrimination based on sexual orientation?
I’ve read the reasons for opposing civil marriage for same-sex couples. Broken down; they’re just as hollow as the fear and intolerance that foster racism and bigotry.
Traditionalists oppose same-sex couples’ use of the term “marriage,” suggesting they adopt another word to define their union: by identifying same-sex couples as distinct, we’re only separating them further from the rest of us-separate is not the same as equal.
If George W. Bush’s Constitutional amendments really protected the “sanctity” of marriage, they would question why so many of us have affairs, or why over half of all marriages end in divorce.
Unless they’re blaming those issues on homosexuals, I don’t see how allowing same-sex couples into the club could possibly damage the “fragile sanctity” of marriage any more than heterosexuals have already.
Sanctity needs to be found and honoured within a marriage; it cannot exist simply because it is imposed extrinsically.
Civil rights, on the other hand; must exist in such a fashion. Our rights are awarded to all of us on the same terms, without regard to race. It follows then, that rights should be upheld without regard to sexual orientation.
Civil rights allow us to express our beliefs free of discrimination; they are the defining characteristic of North American democracy. They are not contingent upon the approval of others, but solely on our citizenship as Canadians and Americans.
Present-day attitudes against same-sex marriage in the United States are reminiscent of the bans that once existed against interracial marriage. In the late 1940’s US courts refused to marry couples of different colour; 90 percent of the public agreed such unions were against the definition of marriage.
Sound familiar? Guess what California did: They ignored the ban, and started legally marrying interracial couples in 1948. California chose not to put restrictions on discrimination, and bravely shamed the rest of the states for their hypocrisy. The statement was clear: In California, equal means equal.
By 1970, the US Supreme Court had fallen in line. Hopefully, fifty years later, acceptance still lies with patience.
Religious opponents are even more reluctant to adjust their views; acceptance under faith takes much more time. Fortunately, religious opposition to same-sex marriage has no place in this debate.
Religious and civil rights are independent. The issue here is marriage under the law, not marriage under God.
Same-sex marriages hurt no one; divisiveness over the issue is harming us all. When Bush addressed his opposition to same-sex marriage during the State of the Union, he spoke with the same fervour as when he reaffirmed his commitment to the war on terror.
Marriage rights for same-sex couples ensure they be given the same social support other couple receive: things like equitable health coverage, parental status, property rights, and insurance compensation.
If the American federal government is lumping homosexual couples into the same category as terrorism, I suggest it’s time they scrutinize not their marriage customs, but the sanctity of their civil rights.
It’s time we demand the spirits of dignity and equality be returned to our elected officials. It’s time we elect officials that see the difference between homosexuals asking to be treated with the same equality afforded women and racial minorities, and the threat of terrorists.
