As some doors open, others close
November 5The very same night that an African-American senator from Illinois tore down the racial barriers that for generations had tainted the nation, the residents of California decided to build a wall. Voters in the Golden State elected to ban gay marriage Tuesday by a margin of 52 to 48 percent in a referendum called Proposition 8. Although the exact ramifications of this vote have yet to be determined — a cadre of gay rights advocates have filed a legal challenge to Proposition 8, labeling it an illegal constitutional revision — it is clear that this amendment is a giant step backward for equality in America. Eight years ago, California passed a similar proposition, Proposition 22, which, in similar wording, prevented the state from recognizing same-sex marriages. But in a landmark decision in May, the California Supreme Court ruled that marriage is a fundamental nondiscriminatory right under the state's constitution and overturned Proposition 22. Unlike Proposition 22, Proposition 8 is a constitutional change, making it very difficult to overturn. This is a drastic setback for the rights of same-sex couples. While same-sex marriage remains legal here in Massachusetts, in addition to Connecticut, it is devastating for our nation's most populous state to firmly deny this fundamental right to a specific group. The measure's destructive power lies in its ability to inspire other states to follow suit — Arizona, Florida and Arkansas also passed similar measures yesterday — which could create a trend very difficult to stop. This amendment targets a single group to intentionally obstruct one of its freedoms. That is not democracy; that is rule by mob and fear — something the founders desperately sought to prevent. That's the very tactic that ProtectMarriage.com, which was behind the proposition, used when it sent letters to business owners supporting same-sex marriage threatening to publish their names unless they also contributed in support of the ban. A state's constitution is supposed to protect the rights of its citizens, not eliminate them, but groups like ProtectMarriage.com seem to have missed the memo. Many supporters of Proposition 8 argue that the amendment is "not an attack on gay couples," pointing to the availability of "domestic partnerships" as an alternative for same-sex couples. They insist that the amendment is not meant to take away the rights of same-sex couples but to encourage "the best situation" for child rearing. But if domestic partnerships and marriage are comparable, then why vote "yes" on Proposition 8? This is discrimination. In fact, it's one of the last "acceptable" forms of discrimination in our society. Past generations fought a Civil War, marched in the streets and pushed for equal legislation, and since then, much has changed. But this vote shows us just how far we have left to go. The vicious rhetoric and the misguided boycotts that turned this vote into an all-out battle for the souls of California residents should serve to bring this point home for the nation. But that doesn't even scratch the surface of the problem. In one of the country's bluest states, certainly not everybody opposes same-sex marriage. In fact, several pre-election polls suggested that the proposition would fail. So what is to be said of the people who sit at home answering surveys, afraid to voice their true opinions for fear of being perceived as homophobic, only to, in the secrecy of the voting booth, elect to set back minority rights? The fundamental problem is that while it is considered socially unacceptable to express homophobic beliefs, it is all too acceptable to be uncomfortable with homosexuality. This is an insidious form of discrimination because those who harbor it are the ones who are least likely to talk about it, making progress all but out of reach. On May 15, California Chief Justice Ronald George delivered his majority opinion on gay marriage, enumerating his support for same-sex marriage. He wrote: "Excluding same-sex couples from the legal institution of marriage is likely to be viewed as reflecting an official view that their committed relationships are of lesser stature than the comparable relationships of opposite-sex couples … [This] may well have the effect of perpetuating a more general premise — now emphatically rejected by this state — that gay individuals and same-sex couples are in some respects ‘second-class citizens.'" The passing of Proposition 8 must be viewed with the importance and gravity that was attached to previous civil rights clashes. This is undoubtedly just as important. As such, we condemn the passing of Proposition 8 and urge the California Supreme Court to overturn this discriminatory amendment.
