Gay
marriage legislation should pass
Our
view
California
is known for its snowy mountains, dry
deserts and sandy beaches. It is also
known for being a newsworthy innovator.
The Golden State often does it first,
running ahead of the pack with either
magnificent modernism or reckless abandon.
This week, California made national news once more with the first example of
a state Legislature in the United States endorsing gay marriage. Both California’s
Assembly and Senate endorsed the legislation, furthering the nationwide debate.
In reality, there should be no debate at all. What persons of a different sexual
orientation do in relationships should be no business of the state, though
it is the state’s responsibility to grant full equality under the law
and freedom from oppression.
If a man chooses to marry another man, it is his business. If a woman wants
to make sacred ties with another woman, it is her prerogative. Neither of them
deserves lesser rights because they have either chosen or were born with a
different sexual orientation.
They deserve the same marriage benefits as heterosexual couples, tax breaks
and all. They deserve equal standing in society, though such equality is not
achievable by the state.
It is only accomplished through the gradual winning of the hearts and minds
of people who finally realize that gays and lesbians, despite choosing a different
partner, can be positive contributors to a working society. There is little,
if any, reason to think otherwise.
But apparently some do. One voice of the opposition concerning the gay marriage
matter is Tom McClintock, a Republican. He stated gay couples should be entitled
certain rights but not the right to marry. He deemed marriage a “fundamentally
different institution…by which we propagate our species and inculcate
our young.”
In a world bound by strict morals, McClintock’s statement would be correct.
However, the lifelong and sacred nature of marriage is hardly ever achieved
in modern society, making McClintock’s and many other claims utterly
false.
His second reference to marriage being the biological grouping raising children
is true by the laws of science but fails to take into consideration the torrents
of conflicting emotions that can break up that alliance. Children can be raised
by anyone who loves them.
Consequently, the main argument against gay marriage; deeming marriage an infallible
institution not to be tampered with by homosexuals, is without validity.
All eyes now turn to Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s desk, where he has
the right to veto this historic legislation. In the past he has expressed an
acceptance of gay marriages but said it is an issue that should be decided
by courts and voters.
Unfortunately, voters in 2000 voted against gay marriage by barring recognition
of it elsewhere. Will Schwarzenegger, a very responsive governor to the people,
recognize the will of the voters from 2000 or the will of the voter’s
representatives in 2005?
Republicans say the governor is betraying his party’s moral and ethical
values, but the only leg they have to stand on is mentioning the results of
a proposition from five years ago.
Given his poor approval ratings at the moment, it is unclear which move Schwarzenegger
will take for both his own self-benefit and the benefit of gay marriage advocates.
What he should do is grant all of California’s citizens, including those
of alternate sexual orientations, the rights they deserve. |
