Fallacy
of sacred bonds of marriage, hypocrisy
Elisa
Herrera
On
Sept. 19, Gov. Gray Davis came under fire
from some of his already irate opponents
when he signed a bill scheduled to go into
effect in 2005 which grants same-sex couples
registered as domestic partners some of
the same rights given to married couples
on matters such as health care, parental
status and property ownership. Even Arnold
Schwarzenegger, the conservatives poster
boy for the Republican reclamation of the
state, drew heat when he announced his liberal
views on equal rights for domestic partners
just short of using the term "marriage"
to label their unions. Parties on the far
right are outraged at the prospect of gay
marriage, which they believe will catapult
society into the fervent fires of hell.
These contemporary critics of Davis and
Schwarzenegger cite the March 2000 passage
of Prop. 22, which added a 14-word provision
to the state's existing family codes that
read: "Only marriage between a man
and a woman is valid or recognized in California."
Supporters
of this proposal organized a very effective
campaign for this Defense of Marriage Act
using the catchphrase that it would "protect
marriage." In addition to cleverly
capitalizing on the fear that society suffered
from a loss of family values, Prop. 22 supporters
circulated the idea that, at some point
in recent American history, marriage actually
was sacred.
This
blessed view of matrimony is indeed pleasant,
but is also entirely false and imagined.
Any such sanctity of marriage was long swept
away by centuries of malaise, adultery and
divorce. Certainly, nothing is more destructive
to the institution of marriage than divorce,
yet we do not see a concerted effort to
make divorce illegal. Instead, we
see efforts to convince voters that a tiny
fraction of the community poses a far greater
danger than the heterosexual divorce rate
that has long surpassed 50 percent.
The
claim that banning gay marriages "protects"
heterosexual unions is a weak attempt to
camouflage discrimination on the basis of
sex, pure and simple. A prime example of
such double standards occurred during the
very election that featured Prop. 22 on
the ballot. At the end of February, just
days before the state went to the polls
to decide on the marriage initiative, the
Fox network aired its first major foray
into the millionaire/reality television
craze. On "Who Wants to Marry a Multi-Millionaire?"
a parade of women participated in a beauty
pageant competition in which the winner
would marry one lucky man, knowing nothing
about him except that he was rich. Rick
Rockwell, the grand prize, chose his lifetime
companion from a secluded area off-stage
by evaluating contestants' beauty, bodies
and brains (the latter he apparently was
able to ascertain from a question/answer
session lasting a matter of minutes). Less
than one hour later, Darva Conger was selected
as the blushing bride, and the two complete
strangers joined each other on stage to
proclaim their matrimonial vows.
The
show was a bona fide hit for Fox, and viewers
from across the moral spectrum agreed that
the marriage was completely legal because
it was the product of mutual consent from
a man and a woman. Even extreme conservatives
thought these individuals prostituting themselves
for television ratings and fifteen minutes
of fame had the right to enter the "sacred"
bonds of marriage. Yet these same conservatives
said without batting an eye that certain
couples wanting to express genuine lifelong
love and devotion to one another should
be barred from state-recognized unions,
apparently oblivious to their own moral
hypocrisy.
Very
slowly, California has been recovering from
the giant step back in the struggle for
civil rights ushered by the passage of Prop.
22. More and more people are realizing the
consequences of having their lives dictated
by the ideologies of a select few, despite
the extremists who insist that treating
all our citizens equal before the law will
somehow bring about the downfall of the
family and eventually the structure of modern
society. Instead of being distracted by
flawed and flimsy scare tactics utilized
for preserving inequalities, we must focus
on supporting government officials chipping
away at the remnants of state-imposed discrimination.
Elisa
Herrera is a graduate student of history
and can be reached at haytmayl@hotmail.com.
|
