In light of Maine revoking its legalization of same-sex marriage, a vote that harkens back all too painfully to a year ago, I am reposting my blog I wrote when CA voters passed Proposition 8.
I write this before Proposition 8 has officially passed, but despite the seemingly close race, it seems like it will succeed. Perhaps in a few hours, the last thousand precincts will shake things up, but I’ll just have to write something else at that pont.
But I feel compelled to write now. I haven’t been able to sleep for two nights. Two nights ago, it was because I was too excited to vote and anxious to see Barack Obama elected President. That hope and dream came true. However, as tearfully joyous that was and is, I was very much sobered by the streaming results of the Propositions, with 8 holding much attention. And now, with nearly 95% of precincts reporting, it looks like “Proposition 8: Eliminates Right of Same-Sex Couples to Marry” will pass.
With the passage of Proposition 8, I can already see that we have taken another step back from healing the rift that has developed in our country over the issue of sexuality. Where churches are going through full-blown schisms over the issue, we now see our state is nearly bisected over the question of sexuality and society. This chasm that extends between supporters and opponents of Proposition 8 is one that allows people to let fly vitriolic comments in their frustration and passion. Now, with the passage of Proposition 8, I have already seen comments of hatred being directed at those accused of systematizing hatred; already have I seen Facebook statuses of intolerance indicting those condemned for their intolerance. This helps no one and heals nothing.
With the passage of Proposition 8, marriage is now legally defined as only recognizable when between a man and a woman. The California Constitution has now put an explicit limit on who can be a part of the institution. Some claim this is exclusivistic and discriminatory, others defend this is protective and beneficial. With a constitutional amendment, now the State of California must place a wholly new amendment to remove this one, should the state come to a place that deems it contrary to how things ought to be. Or, perhaps the US Supreme Court will hear a case regarding the definition of marriage and all laws restricting marriage based on gender (or sexuality) will be stricken. Either way, for the time being, rights bestowed are now rights revoked and will have to become rights reclaimed. This legal definition of marriage has indeed been a defining moment, but the effects of this momentous definition will be lasting and far-reaching.
With the passage of Proposition 8, however, the concern for me is not truly over the definition. Semantics can be debated for eons and can lead to considerable bloodshed. I am not disputing the power of words, nor the importance of definitions per se. But in this particular case, the concern is superficially about definition, but it is more about devaluation. Supporters of Proposition 8 continuously point to Europe as evidence of how the institution of marriage has become nearly defunct. However, there is no talk of the ubiquity of monogamous relationships, or of how the US has a higher divorce rate than all European countries except Sweden, or how many of those countries have returned the matter of marriage back to the state fully (just as Protestants wanted, back when they did that whole Reformation thing). There is no talk about how a change in definition does not inexorably lead to devaluation. Marriage used to be legally defined as not between people of different races. The definition was changed. African slaves used to be legally defined as not full people. The definition was changed. Gay people used to be considered not mentally healthy, socially acceptable, or personally tolerable. That definition is changing. But legally, it seems, they are still defined as second-class citizens, whose rights shall consist of a separate-but-equal means of life-long union known as a civil union or domestic partnership. Some claim that the rights and responsibilities afforded to same-sex couples by domestic partnerships are entirely equal to that of marriage, and therefore this Proposition is merely a protection of a fundamental building block of society. However, remember that in the 50’s and 60’s, the argument was not over the drinking fountain’s water quality or quantity.
With the passage of Proposition 8, I have become discontent, to put it mildly. This ballot initiative was originally called the Defense of Marriage Act, or something akin to that, but was renamed into the more accurately named “Eliminates Right of Same-Sex Couples to Marry.” Today, this November the 5th, with the passage of Proposition 8 I have found the institution of marriage to be under attack. With the passage of Proposition 8, I have found the institution of marriage questionable in my eyes. With the passage of Proposition 8, if I am to be married some day to a woman I love, I will be partaking of a ceremony of privilege and discrimination. My future marriage has become personally lessened because it has become legally heightened. With the elevation of a future union of mine to a status unobtainable by dear family and friends as well as complete strangers, I will be a part of a system that is undeniably parallel to paying women less and forcing people of color to the back of the bus. Why? Because that pay grade is considered special with regard to gender. Because that seat in the bus was considered prioritized with regard to race. And now, because this union of two people has become a symbol of privilege with regard to sexuality. Paradoxically, with the passage of Proposition 8, the concern of the supporters has become the reality of the opponents: the definition of marriage has changed. The devaluation of marriage has occurred.
With the passage of Proposition 8, California has become one of those states that futurity will look back upon and wonder “Why?” If marriage is indeed a building block of society, a key component of the fabric of our culture, then perhaps we need to deconstruct our society; perhaps we need to stop trying to sew patches onto old cultural wineskins. It was revolutionary to think that a black man was a human being. It is revolutionary we just elected a black man to the Presidency of the United States. It is revolutionary to open up one’s paradigm, one’s world, one’s vulnerability to those who are inherently different. Perhaps a day in the not-too-distant future, we will have another revolution of a different equality: that of sexuality.
