The supporters of Proposition 8, a ballot measure in California, are asking us to redefine marriage. They claim that they’re just restoring marriage to its traditional meaning. What they aren’t telling us is that marriage between same-sex couples is legal for a reason. The California Supreme Court determined that a prohibition against marrying someone of the same sex would violate one of our Constitution’s most fundamental guarantees: the right to equal protection under the law.

Those who have studied the history of marriage know that the question of who can marry whom has come up over and over again. The law has changed many times, and controversy always went along with the changes. Here are some facts as presented in The History of Marriage as an Institution by Larry R. Peterson, Ph.D. (1997). Dr. Peterson is a professor of history at North Dakota State University, Fargo.

• In 1076, Pope Alexander II issued a decree prohibiting marriages between couples who were more closely related than 6th cousins.
• In the 16th century, servants and day laborers were not allowed to marry in Bavaria and Austria unless they had the permission of local political authorities.
• From the 1690s to the 1870s, “wife sale” was common in rural and small-town England. To divorce his wife, a husband could present her with a rope around her neck in a public sale to another man.
• Marriage was strictly a civil and not [a religious] ceremony for the Puritans in Massachusetts Bay until 1686.
• The Pilgrims outlawed courtship of [a young woman with living parents] or a female servant unless consent was first obtained from parents or master.
• Until 1662, there was no penalty for interracial marriage in any of the British colonies in North America. In 1662, Virginia doubled the fine for fornication between interracial couples. In 1664, Maryland became the first colony to ban interracial marriages. By 1750, all southern colonies, plus Massachusetts and Pennsylvania outlawed interracial marriages.
• Under English common law, and in all American colonies and states until the middle of the 19th century, married women had no legal standing. They could not own property, sign contracts, or legally control any wages they might earn.
• In 1848, New York became the first state to pass a Married Woman’s Property Act, guaranteeing the right of married women to own property.
• Throughout most of the 19th century, the minimum age of consent for sexual intercourse in most American states was 10 years. In Delaware it was only 7 years.
• As late as 1930, twelve states allowed boys as young as 14 and girls as young as 12 to marry (with parental consent).
• As late as 1940, married women were not allowed to make a legal contract in twelve states.
• In 1967, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down state anti-miscegenation laws in Loving v. Virginia.
• In 1978, New York became the first state to outlaw rape in marriage. By 1990, only a total of ten states outlawed rape in marriage. In thirty-six states rape in marriage was a crime only in certain circumstances. In four states, rape in marriage was never a crime [under any circumstances].

Let’s see what the definition of marriage might be under some of these traditional rules. We'll try to include the very most traditional traditions.

Marriage is a civil, sexual, or spiritual union between two or more people (a couple).

A man may only marry more than one woman if allowed to do so by the local government's laws and approved by the appropriate church official.

Within designated jurisdictions, a marriage must be arranged, or at least approved, by one or more of the following:

1. The local church’s priest, pastor, or minister

2. A designated government official

3. A respected matchmaker

4. The Bride’s father (or father and mother jointly, where allowed)

5. The Groom’s father (or father and mother jointly, where allowed)

6. Any duly authorized person

A man may sell his wife or wives in a public auction, if so permitted by the local government. Divorce will be granted to a man who sells his wife in a lawful manner.

Marriage between relatives may be prohibited by the local authorities, or it may be restricted by degree of familiar separation between the relatives.

A married woman may not enter into binding contracts; her husband shall make all decisions regarding his wife’s use of family resources.

A marriage between a White man and a Colored woman, as defined, shall be null and void, as shall a marriage between a Colored man and a White woman.

A marriage between persons below the age of 12 shall be null and void.

Any act of sexual intercourse between man and wife shall be deemed consensual for all legal purposes

. . .

Not a very pretty picture, is it? Still, this is our heritage, our history, a link to previous generations. Some (without reading my composite, hypothetical legal section above) would argue that we must not allow the meaning of marriage to change.

Each time a racist or sexist law was struck down in the past, outrage was a common response. “Marriage is a time-honored tradition,” they would say. “It works just fine the way it is, for anyone who matters.” “It’s our sacred heritage.” “Start tampering with the institution of marriage, and we’ll be witness to our society’s downfall.” Sadly, these arguments have been successfully employed by those who believe they know exactly what marriage is and exactly what it should be. On the other hand, their objections generally faded away with time, and our moral progress continued.

Most rational people agree that changes allowing marriage between people of different ethnic or cultural backgrounds have resulted in a more just society. The same goes for giving men and women equal rights within their marriage, allowing people to determine for themselves whom they will marry, and prohibiting marital arrangements that allow men to bring many wives into their households (but not the other way around).

Recently, a court of competent jurisdiction stated that California’s lesbian and gay citizens have as much right to marry as its straight citizens. This is just the latest of many changes to a very, very old practice. It is a sign that our value system is continuing to evolve, and the changes are leading to a more fair and just society.

Because marriage equity for homosexual couples is supported by an increasing majority of the people, gay marriage will not only become legal, but such laws will eventually be permanent, well-accepted, and rarely challenged. Like many changes, this one is painful for some, and I acknowledge that their suffering is real. Right is right, though, and I can’t ignore my conscience. Today, my conscience is telling me to support the change and to encourage others support it as well. The initial outrage of conservatives will subside with time, as it has before, and we’ll be proud to treat gay and straight men and women with fairness and compassion.

Proposition 8 is supported in large part by religious organizations in Utah. It is a typical attempt to hold progress back, just like the others in centuries past. It does nothing more nor less than take the recently-recognized right to marry back from gay and lesbian Californians, who have waited so long for simple equality.

Some try to frighten us by saying our children are being corrupted, the same accusation that led to the conviction and execution of Socrates. He did nothing of the kind, and neither will we if support equality for this subset of our population. Others tell us that, if we allow a woman to marry another woman, we will soon have to allow marriages between people and animals—another absurd prediction designed to alarm otherwise sensible people.

Many fear that gay marriage will somehow make them a little more gay than they were before. Others think that their heterosexual marriages will lose meaning if homosexuals are allowed to have their union certified by the state. None of these fears have any legitimate grounds. They are simply the desperate lies of a gradually shrinking minority. Some people live in fear of people with different sexual tastes, and they want us to become fearful, too.

What we are now faced with is an issue of timing. Will we create a new, higher moral standard in our culture, or will we have to wait for further progress?

I say that the time is now. America is moving toward equality in marriage because its people know how to live in peace with their neighbors. Even when our neighbors make us a little uncomfortable, we'll get used to them; sometimes, we’ll even become friends.

Echoes of our old prejudice rattle around in the backs of our minds like dirt in an old tire, and they can be just as hard to get rid of. Fortunately, fewer and fewer of us are believing the lies of the fear-mongers. We may never completely purge the scars of history from our own minds, but we can still leave a better world behind us for future generations.

As a straight man, I feel it's my duty to defend my gay and lesbian brothers and sisters from discrimination. They deserve to have the same legal rights as the rest of us. If my rights are ever questioned, I hope my fellow Californians will feel and act in the same way. I appeal to your your heart, mind, and soul to do what's right. My heart, mind, and soul say in one voice that it’s the right time for change. The American promise of freedom is under fire, and I’m fighting back. I’m voting NO on PROPOSITION 8. Will you join me?