A couple of reasons to oppose Prop. 8

A couple of reasons to oppose Prop. 8

October 30, 2008

Proposition 8 should de defeated for two good reasons.

Colleen and Susan.
On the other hand, the anti-gay-marriage initiative just might win a majority Tuesday. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints – ironically, an American faith community that struggled in the distant past with marriage customs – is pouring money and manpower into Proposition 8.

The Mormons are not alone. Other churches and cultural conservatives of every stripe have joined the crusade.

Well, they don't call it holy matrimony for nothing.

On both sides, dead-certain partisans are working themselves to fever pitch.

San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom, whose annoying boast – “The door's wide open now!” – anchors pro-Proposition 8 ads, is calling this the second-most important vote of the election. Polls suggest the race is going to go down to the wire with a sliver of as-yet undecided voters likely playing a decisive role.

To back up eight years, I didn't particularly care about Proposition 22, the successful 2000 initiative limiting marriage to a union between a man and a woman. What homosexual couples really needed, I figured, was cultural acceptance and legal rights, not the wedding vows.

Why inflame the religious conservatives with the red cape of same-sex marriage, I figured, when there were more practical things to nail down?

My slow-but-steady road to equality was blown up in May when the state Supreme Court leaped into the future, ruling that same-sex marriage is now a constitutionally protected right.

Oh, God, I thought.

Holy war.

In June, I witnessed the first same-sex marriage in North County's history.

Susan Bauer and Colleen Francis tied the knot with Lauren Seals, assistant deputy commissioner of civil marriages, officiating. Before the symbolic kiss, Seals said:

“The marriage contract is most solemn and should not be entered into lightly but rather thoughtfully and seriously and with a deep realization of its obligations and its responsibilities.”

I ask you: Is the marriage contract any less solemn for the state than it is for the bride and, in this case, the bride? Is it too much to expect that California execute a marriage contract thoughtfully and seriously and with a deep realization of its obligations and responsibilities?

While undecided voters might agree with me that the high court's decision reached too far too fast, I hope they'd also agree that the legitimacy of that June wedding in San Marcos – and some 11,000 others that followed through the summer and fall – is a sacred contract.

Once the vows have been exchanged, only death, and not a state proposition, should part the married couple.

To be fair, it's unclear what would happen to Susan and Colleen's marriage if Proposition 8 were to win.

Jerry Brown, the state attorney general, has said that he believes – and will argue in court – that the marriages performed between June and November should not be annulled. In his view, Proposition 8 would not be enforced retroactively.

But the initiative itself is silent on the issue.

In its argument opposing Proposition 8, the California League of Women Voters offers this scary interpretation:

“If Proposition 8 passes, and is not overturned by the courts, the same-sex marriages that were entered into since the California Supreme Court ruling went into effect in June 2008 would become null and void since they would violate the letter of the law that 'only a marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.' ”

At the very least, the passage of Proposition 8 would not only take from gay citizens a right they have enjoyed but place a cloud over 11,000 marriages undertaken in good faith.

Of course, if Proposition 8 passes, another outcome is possible: The courts could overturn it, generating yet another wave of protest against another test of homosexual normality. We could look forward to more holy war.

In the end, I have a hard time seeing any good coming from the passage of Proposition 8. If Susan and Colleen endure a second of doubt about the legitimacy of their marriage, count me out. We owe them calm certainty.

That's why I'll be voting against Proposition 8. It's not because I'm such a champion of gay marriage. As I say, I didn't much care about Proposition 22 one way or the other.

What I do care about is the cruelty of throwing into question the legitimacy of 11,000 marriages performed during a surprising spring thaw in a long winter.

Before casting their ballots, those few undecided voters should reflect on their 22,000 fellow Californians who with trembling voices and quaking hearts said, “I do.”

Vote for them.

Logan Jenkins: (760) 737-7555; logan.jenkins@uniontrib.com.