The supreme issue

Earlier this week, the California Supreme Court announced its ruling on the widely debated Proposition 8. The proposition, passed last year, modified the state’s constitution to recognize marriage between a man and a woman only, and overrides a previous law allowing gay couples to marry.

The court’s ruling states that the proposition will stand, and is legal, making California a state that constitutionally bans same-sex marriage.

However, the decision acknowledges nearly 18,000 same-sex couples that were married during the short time when the state legally recognized same-sex marriage. So, in the end, the California Supreme Court basically said, “No gay marriage, except for these 18,000 people who got in just in time. They’re OK.”

Initially when I heard the news, I was relieved that Ellen and Portia’s as well as Star Trek’s George Takei’s marriage to Brad Altman remained safe. As for the larger issue at hand, for me, it really isn’t too difficult to solve.

California currently stands in constitutional defiance of the United States of America. As I understand it, if you want to be in the union, then as a state, you better fall in line with the United States Constitution, which set forth a precedent of not infringing upon the civil rights of the people. Now, did the founding fathers have same-sex marriage in their minds when they wrote the Constitution? Most likely not. They did, however, hold a philosophical ideal that civil liberties were not to be taken lightly.

I understand entirely how the California Supreme Court could come to its decision. The people of California did go through the legal process to establish such a ban, and upheld the belief that marriage is between a man and a woman. However, belief is not the true issue here. No matter what anyone says, legally recognizing same-sex marriage does not threaten the right of people to believe in marriage between a man and a woman only. It does not endanger families to believe in the manner they wish, or force churches to teach doctrine they do not subscribe to. No organization will be forced to marry same-sex couples if they do not believe it is right. That belief, and practice thereof, is the right of those people who uphold it. You can never legally mandate a belief in this country.

Just as anti-same-sex marriage supporters have the constitutional right to believe and practice as they wish, people who do not share their opinion also have a right to their beliefs, and to their marriages. But the right to one’s beliefs is not the issue here. The civil liberties and rights of the people as a whole are the issue. It is a civil right to marry who you choose to in this country.

The founding fathers probably didn’t have mixed race-marriages in consideration when forging the constitution either. But today we recognize such unions, as decided in the 1967 civil rights case of Loving vs. Virginia. In this decision, the United States Supreme Court ruled that the state of Virginia had no authority to ban mixed-race marriages, upholding a specific marital belief, as it was unconstitutional.

The state of California faces the same core issue today as Virginia did in 1967. Does their law regarding same-sex marriage stand nobly with the United States Constitution? The responsibility to answer this issue will inevitably fall into the ruling hands of future legal battles and judges, perhaps even the United States Supreme Court. But if you ask me, it is simple, California is currently unconstitutional on this issue, and is infringing upon the civil rights of its same-sex citizens.