Yesterday, May 26th, the California State Supreme Court upheld the results of the Proposition 8 vote in November which amended the state constitution to place a ban on gay marriage, effectively defining marriage as being between a man and a woman.  Placed in a bind by a proposition that was voted in through democratic means, the Supreme Court had no choice but to uphold it, though they made sure to state that the 18,000 couples that were married prior to the constitutional amendment was voted into effect would be legally recognized.  Though the media is focused on the Supreme Court’s decision, the problem rests in the idea that a group of people voted away the rights of a minority group, a reprehensible act that should never occur in a country that was designed to protect the rights of everyone, despite their race, religion, sex, or preference in gender.  By putting Proposition 8 into law, the citizens of California, once considered one of the more tolerant states in the union, have set a dangerous precedent by deciding who is allowed to be married, an act that carries with it major legal and tax based ramifications.

The beauty of the theory behind the United States of America is its ability to change and grow into the ideals that it was founded on.  Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness may not have been afforded to all of its citizens upon the initial founding of the country, but as time has continued on, America has matured and grown into those lofty ideals that seemed so revolutionary in the waning days of the 18th century.  Over 200 years later, the country is still growing, not quite mature enough to fit into the ideals completely, but still learning its ways through the pratfalls that are not dissimilar to what a young child would go through.  Like the Jim Crow laws before this, Prop 8 most likely will be pulled from the books, though how long that will take will be anyone’s guess. 

The main argument behind the gay marriage ban stems from the fear that the institution of marriage is in danger because of the idea that a minority group can have the right to marry.  It’s a similar argument used in the early 20th century to prevent inter-racial marriage in the south, one built on the premise that the Bible wills that a marriage be performed in  a specific and pure way.  During that period it was that a man and a woman need be the same skin color, today it is based on sexual preference.  There is a major problem with this line of thinking.  For starters, the various rules and regulations in the Bible have been picked over so many times that to claim one issue over another is a bit hypocritical.  In a theocracy based government there may be some credence to allowing the rule of law to be based upon biblical theory.  But, in a republic such as the United States, which allows its citizens to vote for their representatives and laws, the bible should have minimal impact on policy and voting decisions.  Within specific churches and faiths, the Bible can be used as the law within that church, but outside of there and within the borders of this country, Biblical support only goes so far. 

Marriage itself has gone through a major change since its current inception within the Judao-Christian religions.  Where once it was required for both partners to convert to their specific religion, today the rules are less stringent, though a few churches require the conversion of both partners, which is entirely in their right.  But, the idea that a marriage has to follow a religious guideline is outdated and passé in a non-theocratic society.  Everyone has the right to believe in what they wish, if a citizen wants to follow the rules set down for marriage in the Bible then they may do so, but if someone wishes to have a marriage outside of a church or faith, then they have the right to do so and no one may infringe on this right.  In the context of gay marriage, if a specific church does not let their congregation allow a marriage between two members of the same gender, then that is fine.  It’s what they believe, it may go against the ideals behind a free society, but it can do what it feels right within the walls of their church

It’s the issue of tax incentives and legality that is a crucial factor in the argument regarding gay marriage.  Married couples receive numerous incentives and legal rights which extend to matters involving health and property decisions.  Without these guidelines, it becomes almost impossible for gay couples to visit sick partners, or in the case of that partner’s death, they legally have no say in what happens to their property or even the couple’s adopted children.  Of course, there is the option of civil unions, but again, this is a separate but equal idea that harkens back to the days of two waterfountains, one for whites and one for non-whites.  An easy answer would be to eliminate all tax and legal incentives stemming from a legal marriage.  If a certain group is denied rights, then perhaps all groups should lose those rights.  Of course, that would never happen, but the idea of not allowing a specific demographic these rights and incentives is troublesome.  As previously noted, specific religious institutions could bar gays from their services, but by hiding behind government law, it allows them to keep their own tax incentives that could be taken away if they were to begin keeping homosexuals from their numbers. 

Ultimately, there will be a time when this will all go away and it will become just another sorry footnote in the history of this country, but until then, the people of this country have to understand the danger of allowing a change in any constitution, especially when it has specific ties to religion.  The U.S. has a long history of religion and religious tolerance, but allowance does not make the country a theocracy.  It is still a republic with democratic principles and to deny any of its citizens the basic rights afforded the majority group is a smack to the face of the very ideals the country tries so hard to strive for.  That day of perfection is still a long ways off, but until that day comes when all of its citizens have the same rights, then the United States will always be that young child of a country, still flailing around when all it has to do is grow up into the potential that has always had.