Gay marriage ban a matter of rights

By Joe Varney

If the anti-Prop 8 crowd had a modicum of common sense and direction, a victory for equality could have been won for gay marriage two years ago.

The fight should have been over the second each California citizen stepped into the voting booth in November of 2008.

But a poorly researched and executed campaign drove what should have been a slam dunk into the ground.

As the fight continues, those of us who believe in gay marriage must forge ahead and learn from the sub-par campaign performance of 2008.

A great first step was accomplished on Aug. 4th when a huge victory for gay marriage was handed down from the California Supreme Court. The head judge on the ruling, Vaughn R. Walker, ruled that the reasoning behind the movement to ban gay marriage is baseless.

Walker founded his ruling on previous California Supreme Court ruling stating that the state government may not enforce "moral or religious beliefs without an accompanying secular purpose."

This meant that, given that the argument against gay marriage was a moral one derived from an individual's beliefs, supporters of Proposition 8 had to present a substantive argument that their position against gay marriage is founded in secular reasoning.

Basically, an opinion is not nearly enough. One must have solid proof that their opinion or belief has a secular impact on society that necessitates the involvement of the government.

Brian S. Brown, the executive director of the National Organization for Marriage, called Walker's ruling a "horrendous decision."

Brown and the like defend Proposition 8 with the secular argument that same-sex marriage damages traditional marriage, which was historically rooted in the need to foster procreation.

Judge Walker saw through their transparency, however. Walker noted that the defendants shifted their arguments for the courtroom, where they focused on "statistically optimal" child-rearing households, arguing that "same sex marriage cannot sustain the existence and survival of the human race."

Does Brown have any support for these outlandish statements?

I do not believe that he does. If Brown has a scientific study showing that gay marriage threatens the survival of the human race, I would love to see it.

The Proposition 8 supporters failed to present proof that gay marriage threatens the continuation of the human race, thus debunking their entire argument.

What is sad is that Mr. Brown fails to see why the judicial system in the United States was created.

For Brown, the purpose of the legal system is to uphold the will of California voters who "simply wished to preserve the historic definition of marriage." In reality, the point of the justice system is to uphold the constitutional rights of all of the citizens of California, something Proposition 8 completely fails to do.

There have been plenty of instances in which the Supreme Court or other courts have overturned the will of the people because it violates the Constitution.

Racial segregation in the south was supported by a majority of the population at one time, but it too was overturned. In Brown vs. The Board of Education, racial segregation was ruled unconstitutional, and the rights of a minority group were preserved over the will of the majority.

Can you even imagine someone arguing in favor of racial segregation today?

Another common argument I hear is that banning same-sex marriage is okay because homosexuals get the same rights as heterosexual couples in the form of civil unions.

First of all, this is simply untrue; many states do not have civil unions, and civil unions do not always come with all the legal rights of marriage.

But secondly, why not call it what it is? What is the problem calling it marriage when two people love each other, live together and, for all intents and purposes, act like a married couple?

There is no logical answer. At least not one that has ever been offered to me.

To relegate a certain segment of society to the status of a second-class citizen is unacceptable at all times.

The degree of oppression does not matter. Judge Walker's elegant, innovative, thorough and forceful decision makes it difficult for the opponents of gay marriage to argue the same dismantled argument in court.

It is my hope that the nation's high court will see this issue for what it really is: A case about denying or granting equality to every citizen of the United States.

Joe Varney is a senior political science major.