Marriage equality

By Editorial

San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom's call to allow same-sex marriages this month has certainly raised eyebrows, marking another push to recognize unions in light of a widely-discussed federal marriage ban. Others should keep pushing.

Newsom, a Santa Clara alumnus, took a gutsy move in allowing the unions. But such is the case of politics these days in California: A swift kick in the pants is what the political system needed to reaffirm that it does care about the population at large. Newly-elected Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who replaced former Gov. Gray Davis in the recall election last fall, has promised to bring government in Sacramento back to the people. Newsom did the same this week in the Bay Area by ordering the city to begin issuing marriage certificates to gay men and lesbians.

This page believes that the state should have no place telling consenting adults what to do, or that marriage between a man and a women should be dictated at the state or federal level.

Such a trend indicates a social push in American politics in recent years. Decisions by the state of Vermont, which recognized same-sex unions years ago, and the Massachusetts Supreme Court could be anathema to President Bush's call for a federal amendment banning gay marriage.

Admirable as the decision may be, Newsom appears to be in conflict with a 1974 California law that bans such practices. In 2000, voters put a further restriction on same-sex marriages, codifying that California should not recognize such unions from other states. Newsom, while arguably breaking the law as a state actor, argues that California's equal protection clause takes precedence over any such prohibition on gay unions.

His argument may be supplemented at the federal level with an interpretation of the Ninth Amendment and the Supreme Court's affirmation of privacy in Griswold v. Connecticut.

Only time will tell if Newsom's decision will set a welcomed precedent for future unions.