America: land of the free, home of the myopic.
California Supreme Court Overturns Gay Marriage Ban. This is tremendous, forward-thinking, constitutionally appropriate news. The United States is where people are supposed to be free from oppression, and this kind of decision is a thoughtful interpretation of that.
So what do gay marriage opponents want to do? Change the Constitution. I won’t go deeply into the pro argument and my views on the subject (now apparent); I am here instead to pass along this quote:
“The court was wrong from top to bottom on this one,” said Maggie Gallagher, president of the National Organization for Marriage. “The court brushed aside the entire history and meaning of marriage in our tradition.”
In our tradition. Whose tradition? Religious Christians? Fundamentalist California residents? Maggie Gallagher’s family?
That statement lays bare all that is wrong with the anti-gay-marriage argument. American law is not just about tradition; proper interpretations are not a this-is-how-we’ve-always-done-it discussion. No, the law is about, or should be about, what is fair and just and sensible and appropriate, as thoughtful, wise people would approach society, had they a clean slate to properly adjust society’s ways.
The gay marriage law isn’t about doing things “traditionally,” nor is it about making Maggie Gallagher and her peers comfortable with homosexuality, which is their own problem. No, the law is about doing right by individuals who have done no wrong. And someday, at least theoretically, a majority of Americans will view this subject as they do issues of race and religion, as a differentiator that by and large defines our society in a positive light.
Perhaps it is too much to ask, but one can hope.
Good article. Thanks for the support!
So true. We need a new tradition. How ’bout we start with a new word for marriage. I don’t know, some kind of androgynous moniker.
Respectfully disagree…. When it comes to sexuality, I don’t care who wants to sleep with whom. The CA Supreme Court decision is an afront to Democracy. What they essentially did was deny the people of CA their vote. This issue was voted on and the people of CA decided that was the law they wanted for their state. What kind of a Democracy takes away a law that was voted on and approved by that states’ people, no matter what you may think of the law? To go against the will of the people is no form of Democracy in my opinion.
Jacob: the will of the people is not necessarily the wisest course of action. This is why America is a republic and not a true one-man-one-vote democracy. Once upon a time Jim Crow laws were popular, but fair-minded intelligence prevailed there as well.