Ellington

It is difficult for me to express how profound a disappointment the passage of Proposition 8 is.

Approved on Nov. 4, Prop. 8 stripped homosexual California couples of their right to marry, defining marriage as a union between a man and woman. As a contrast to the unprecedented election of a black man to the U.S. presidency, the proposition’s passage is a reminder of how much progress in civil rights there is left to be made.

While it is sad to learn that 52 percent of Californians view homosexual love as inherently inferior to heterosexual love, it is outraging and continually baffling that the proposition’s backers see enshrining this prejudice in law as just.

The arguments used to defend the proposition are feeble at best. The argument that marriages are intended for the production of children belies the reality that many heterosexual couples are childless. Are they to be denied the right of marriage too?

The reasoning that heterosexual marriages are the fundamental unit of society and thus deserving of “protection” from untraditional forms of family, is unfounded. Not only does it rely on normative gender assumptions, but it assumes that it is the government’s role to both determine what forms of love and family are acceptable and to enforce them.

A recent parody of this logic has been used in an anti-Prop. 8 ad, which calls to protect traditional marriage by outlawing divorce. With divorce having garnered no such ire from the traditional marriage establishment, the hypocrisy is plain.

Other arguments that claim gay marriage is outside the historical norms of society make the mistake of assuming that the longevity of norms indicates their legitimacy. As Keith Olbermann remarked in his moving commentary on gay marriage, in 16 states interracial marriage remained illegal up until 1967. Only until the United States “redefined” marriage did it become legal for people of different races to wed.

Then, as now, discrimination against individuals stepping outside the norms of society supports the unjust withholding of rights granted to other citizens. In this light, snide comments made by Prop. 8 supporters that “everyone has the equal right to marry a member of the opposite sex” are especially off base. I can imagine someone 50 years ago arguing that “everyone has the equal right to marry members of their own race.”

Perhaps most significantly, the exclusion of homosexuals from the right of marriage wholly breaches the division between church and state by allowing religious beliefs to determine state policy, however unconstitutional they may be.

And those who argue that Prop. 8 is justified because it passed with a democratic majority should Google “tyranny of the majority” and consider that a majority of Americans once opposed the abolition of slavery, women’s suffrage and the desegregation of schools.

It’s apparent, given the logical irrationality of the common arguments made against gay marriage, that the support of Prop. 8 is driven not by reason, but by emotion. The sooner that anti-Prop. 8 organizers realize this, the sooner they will rally voters to their cause.

In the anti-Prop. 8 ads aired prior to Election Day, there was a remarkable absence of gay couples. By not emphasizing the common commitment, humanness and love of homosexual couples, organizers missed a key opportunity.

It is easy to forget in a relatively open-minded city like Seattle that the vast majority of people have little to no contact with same sex partners.

Thus, their conception of gay relationships are composed almost entirely of conjecture.

For this reason, it’s key that pro-same-sex-marriage efforts, in tandem with battling this discrimination in the courts, encourage understanding. They must emphasize an emotionally-based understanding of these couples’ experiences.

That is what this is about — the universal human quest for love unbounded by gender and unhindered by law.

Reach columnist Sarah Gaither at opinion@dailyuw.com.

Rebuttal

For an opposing viewpoint, read Gay marriage? Let’s stop and think about this.