Deny gay marriage, deny equality

By Christie Genochio

'When Dad and John finally get married, it's going to be the event of the season," said Jane, a native Manhattanite and senior at Haverford College in Philadelphia. "I can try to get you a spot on the guest list for the launch party, but I can't make any promises."

I glanced at the e-mail attachment of the Calvin Klein-clad, middle-aged couple standing hip to hip at the helm of a smoking barbecue. Both men were caught biting into an enormous chocolate chip cookie with an anti-Bush slogan scrawled in red icing.

"It needs to be legalized," Jane said, speaking of gay marriage. "They know it won't happen anytime soon, even in New York, but they're waiting. They've waited this long already, and they'll keep waiting. They don't want a civil union, and they don't want to have to go to Massachusetts to get married. We're New Yorkers. Voters have to approve it eventually, right?"

On Sept. 6, it seemed like the mechanism for change had been set in motion, at least on the West Coast. Two years after San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom's audacious approval of gay marriage, a bill proposed by Assemblyman Mark Leno, D-San Francisco, to legalize gay marriage in California was passed by the state legislature. It won with a whisper-thin victory of 41-39, but it was a radical and historic victory no less.

However, on Sept. 29 Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed the fledgling measure. And why would he send same-sex marriage to the guillotine? As he declared in an official statement directly following his suppression of the bill, "I do not believe the legislature can reverse an initiative approved by the people of California. If the ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional, this bill is not necessary. If the ban is constitutional, this bill is ineffective."

The initiative he refers to is Proposition 22, backed by 61 percent of voters in March 2000, which stated: "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." So the blame goes to the voters.

Sadly, "Dad and John" aren't the only ones whose relationship suffers. Homosexual couples remain thwarted in their pursuit of legal marriage. They are told to be satisfied with civil union or "domestic partnership," and some voters assume that this is just a more austere, secular version of a religious institution.

However, such an assumption is patently false.

First, civil union exists only in Vermont and Connecticut, and only this year has domestic partnership legislation been enacted in California. This presents a problem since such unions are state border bound. There is no federal or interstate recognition of these relationships; to dissolve a civil union, one member of the couple must be a one-year resident of the state in which they were married, but married couples can be wed and divorced in any state. Since civil unions are unrecognized by the government, couples are not allowed to file joint tax returns and are ineligible for the tax breaks and protections given to married partners. Furthermore, one partner cannot sponsor his or her non-American partner for immigration into this country.

So, all things being equal, nothing is equal at all.

In February 2004, President Bush called for a constitutional amendment "to protect marriage in America." Such an amendment would underscore the heterosexual specificity of the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act because, as he said, "Ages of experience have taught humanity that the commitment of a husband and wife to love and to serve one another promotes the welfare of children and the stability of society."

Is he implying that the commitment of same-sex couples engenders anarchy and endangers children?

But the beauty of our country is that it all boils down to democracy. On Nov. 8, a special election will be held that will not only determine Schwarzenegger's future as governor, but will also include five propositions (73-76) cited as being "anti-equality" by Equality California, the state's largest lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender civil rights advocacy organization and key sponsor of Leno's bill. It's an opportunity for proponents of civil rights in this state set an example for the rest of the nation.

And if we waste this chance, we allow future politicians to justify the denial of equal rights.

Conservative voters will turn up at the polls as they did to smite Proposition 22 in 2000 and to ban gay marriage in 11 states during last year's general election. It is their political participation -- their attendance on Election Day -- that has charted the course of civil rights legislation in this country. They have shamed the blue residents of red states who didn't turn up as well as all who let their voices and principles go unheard.

Sitting back and thinking liberal thoughts won't cut it; people like Dad and John deserve to have their relationship acknowledged and respected, to receive the same benefits and protections as any other person. They deserve their launch party. And when California sets the trend, it can't be long before the rest of the country follows suit.

Christie Genochio is a senior English and history major.