Joseph Brown: Gay Marriage Rites Vs. Civil Rights

W hen San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom announced earlier this month that he would issue same-sex marriage licenses, I thought it was going to be a symbolic gesture following Massachusetts' decision to legalize such unions. It turned out to be nothing but political theater undertaken in the name of civil rights.

The whole thing seems to be a scam: With the state of California refusing to legitimize the more than 3,200 ``marriages'' granted - at $100 a license - the city of San Francisco is at least $320,000 richer.

As Newsweek noted, ``Newsom could have issued his challenge through the courts, claiming that a state law defining marriage as a contract between a man and a woman violated the California constitution's guarantee of equal protection under the law.'' But there was no money in that.

What really outraged me, however, was his bringing a civil rights icon into the issue.

``Rosa Parks didn't wait for the courts to tell her it was all right to ride in the front of the bus,'' said Newsom. ``It's never, ever, the `right' time for change.''

Newsom was tacitly drawing comparisons between previous bans against interracial marriage and laws that forbid gays from wedding. He's not the first to try to draw the similarities, and he won't be the last. But there's no comparison.

First of all, Rosa Parks risked fines and racial harassment for refusing to give up her seat and move to the back of the bus like a good colored woman. Those San Francisco couples risk nothing except the $100 they coughed up.

Also, the San Francisco couples won't face the same risks as the man and wife involved in Loving vs. Virginia, the case the U.S. Supreme Court used to strike down state laws that banned interracial marriage.

Mildred Jeter and Richard Loving were married in June 1958. She was black; he was white. The wedding was performed in Washington, D.C., where the law permitted racially mixed marriage. The Lovings then settled in Caroline County, Va. That October a grand jury indicted the Lovings for violating Virginia's law against marriage between whites and nonwhites. The two pleaded guilty in January 1959 and were given a choice: Go to jail for a year or take a 25-year suspended sentence on condition that they leave Virginia and not return. The Lovings opted for the latter and returned to Washington.

In 1963, on heels of Martin Luther King's ``I Have a Dream'' speech, they launched a court fight to overturn their convictions. In 1967 their case finally reached the Supreme Court, which had no trouble concluding that anti-miscegenation laws violated the Equal Protection Clause barring race- based discrimination.

So I just can't compare the Loving's struggle with those couples in San Francisco.

Last week in Broward County, dozens of gay men and women sued a court clerk in order to challenge the Florida law prohibiting them from obtaining marriage licenses.

``An idea whose time has come can never be stopped,'' said attorney Ellis Rubin, who represents the 175 gays filing suit. ``This idea's time is now.''

In its opinion on the Loving case, the Supreme Court called marriage ``one of the `basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival.''

Who would have thought that years later, legislatures and the courts would be debating whether this ``basic civil rights of man'' meant two men getting hitched. Joseph H. Brown is a Tribune editorial writer.

I respect all mankind's right to dirty himself.

(This does not include the ripping of babies that dream and yawn and smile, from their mother's wombs!!!)

God is there to help when they are convicted of their sin.

Problem now is that all Americans are guilty of the sin of sodomy and spitting in God's face.

Don't you feel your part in this? I feel so dirty and disgusted as an American, I want to puke!!

Unless we actively rise up and zealously express our godly hatred of the evil that is going on unchecked, we will lose our liberty, lose our freedom, lose our country.

And if we aren't fighting
praying and fighting
against this great stench in the nostrils of God,
we are helping evil forces
and our guilt will not be excused because of our ignorance,
or because our pastor didn't push us.

RealClearPolitics 'blog
J. McIntyre
Friday, February 27 2004
MORE GAY MARRIAGE: Al Sharpton from last night'sDemocratic debate:
I think this is not an issue any more of just marriage. This is an issue of human rights. And I think it is dangerous to give states the right to deal with human rights questions. That's how we ended up with slavery and segregation going forward a long time.

I, under no circumstances, believe we ought to give states rights to gay and lesbians' human rights. Whatever my personal feelings may be about gay and lesbian marriages, unless you are prepared to say gays and lesbians are not human beings, they should have the same constitutional right of any other human being.
When I heard this it occurred to me that for those who believe that gay marriage is an issue about fundamental fairness and equality of the law, this is really the only intellectually sound position. If this issue is truly analogous to the old laws which barred interracial marriage in many states (a common arguing point for the pro-gay marriage side) then Sharpton is exactly right that leaving this to the states would be immoral and wrong.

Does anyone think for one second that this countrytoday would stand for the argument that it is OK for Virginia or Alabama to pass laws barring interracial marriage? Of course not.

So if gay marriage is fundamentally about basic civil rights for all citizens in this country, then I don't see how gay marriage proponents can honestly argue for a "states-rights" system that would legally discriminate against individuals in some states.

FEDERAL MARRIAGE AMENDMENT:

I understand the reticence to alter the Constitution, and I myself am unsure whether I would support the FMA. But it is disingenuous for Senator Kerry to say he is against gay marriage and that the issue should be left up to the states.

Given what is happening in the real world in Massachusetts and San Francisco, and given the Supreme Court's decision on sodomy earlier this year and the Full Faith and Credit clause of the Constitution, the reality is that if you are truly against gay marriage and you want the laws of the nation to reflect that opposition, the only viable option is probably an amendment to the Constitution.

So where do you stand? If you think this is an issue of basic human equality then Sharpton is right and a "states-rights" position is morally wrong. If you are against gay marriage and want the laws to reflect that position then you are going to have to face the uncomfortable truth that a Constitutional amendment might be the only way to make that a reality.

A simple question to someone who is supposedly against gay marriage would be:
"Would you support an amendment to the Constitution enshrining marriage as between one man and one woman if that was the ONLY way to legally preserve the sanctity of marriage. Yes or No?"
If the answer is "no" then it doesn't seem to me from a public policy standpoint that that person is against gay marriage.

Democrats Focus on Gay Marriage in California Debate
Associated Press
February 26, 2004
Democratic rivals John Kerry and John Edwards differed on the use of the death penalty Thursday night, but found common ground in opposing gay marriage in a debate five days before the biggest primary night of the campaign season... On the day that celebrity Rosie O'Donnell was married to her longtime girlfriend, both men voiced opposition to gay marriages, but said the issue should be left to the states. They also criticized President Bush for requesting a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriages. Kerry said Bush was "trying to divide America," and described him as a president who "always tries to create a cultural war and seek the lowest common denominator ..." "This president is talking ... about amending the Constitution for a problem that does not exist," said Edwards.

All of us here realize that President Bush did not raise the issue of gay marriage, but has staked out his very strong opposition to it.

Confronted with a question about a child killer, Kerry said his instinct "is to want to strangle that person with my own hands," but the former prosecutor added that he favors the death penalty only for cases of terrorism. Edwards, a Southern-bred politician, differed, saying there are other crimes that "deserve the ultimate punishment." He cited as an example the killers of James Byrd, a black man who was dragged to death from a pickup truck in 1998 in Texas.

One psycho and one panderer. Lucky for me I don't have to choose between them.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.