By Andrew Simon
Forum Editor

With the nation engulfed in debate over the virtues of marriage and homosexuality, San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom pulled a fast one and began marrying gay and lesbian couples in blatant violation of California’s constitution, and his oath of office.

Aghast at the recent spate events concerning gay marriage, Newsom defied the law in order to “fight hard” for gay marriage. Mayor Newsom said that marriage between same-sex couples is “inevitable” and that anything less is “fundamentally wrong.”

Eight months ago, Alabama Supreme Court judge Roy Moore disregarded state and federal law by erecting a monument emblazoned with the 10 Commandments. Moore said that “the fight to defend our Constitutional rights to acknowledge God must and will continue.” So what’s the difference between Newsom violating the law to promote gay marriage and Moore violating the law to recognize the 10 Commandments (or, for that matter, Governor George Wallace refusing to allow desegregation)?

In the end, not much. Mayor Newsom has pledged to “fight,” echoing Judge Moore’s determination to “fight” and Wallace’s promise to “resist.” Newsom claims that even though his actions violate California Family Code 300, the Constitution protects equal rights and takes precedence. Moore believes that even though the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the 10 Commandments have no place in a courthouse, the “acknowledgment of God” takes precedent. Both are acting outside, or above, the law.

Both Mayor Newsom and Justice Moore engaged in acts they considered civil disobedience, defying higher orders to promote what they considered “right” and “just.” Newsom and the gay marriage proponents believe that history will justify their actions. Moore and the Religious Right believe they will rewarded in eternity.

For many of us, Mayor Newsom’s actions are just another salvo fired across the bow of those opposed to gay marriage, the next step in securing equal protection under the law for homosexuals. I firmly believe that the rights of marriage should be extended to gays and lesbians. It is in this belief that I disagree with the course of action of Mayor Newsom.

In addition to breaking the law, Newsom has invigorated those firmly set against gay marriage. While Newsom’s cause is noble, accelerating the cause of gay marriage indiscriminately will, in the end, be harmful to the cause. Look at the hysteria his actions have caused from those opposed to gay marriage. Newsom’s actions make the campaign for a Constitutional amendment seem more urgent. The Defense of Marriage Act, a federal law signed by President Clinton defining marriage as only between a man and a woman in 1996, and state laws do not seem to be impeding Newsom’s reckless wanton disregard for the law. President Bush’s endorsement of the amendment can be seen as a direct result of Newsom’s actions invigorating social conservatives. For those opposed to same-sex marriage, an amendment seems to be the last resort.

In this regard, I would have to disagree with Andrew Sullivan, noted gay marriage advocate (who is speaking in Chase Lounge this Thursday, March 4 at 7:30 p.m.), when he wrote that the images of gay and lesbian couples getting married would advance the acceptance of gender-neutral marriage. “Just as we can now get real pictures from the liberation in Iraq, so we can get real pics of the first gay Americans to have their love and commitment solemnized by their own government. Thousands of them. In an act of civil disobedience. Yes, I know this is breaking the law. But Rosa Parks broke the law as well.” The problem arises in ascertaining when civil disobedience is justified and when it is not. Is Roy Moore’s insistence on placing the 10 Commandments in the Alabama Supreme Court less justified than illegally marrying gay and lesbian couples in San Francisco, simply because we believe in the principle being promoted?

The argument for restricting gay marriage has been dwindling. The “sanctity of marriage” has recently been nothing more than a myth. Skyrocketing divorce rates, rising rates of cohabitation and procreation outside of marriage, and Britney Spears-like stories of drinking one too many Red Bull Vodkas in Vegas (and getting hitched by an Elvis-impersonator) destabilize the argument that a loving and faithful couple (monogamous for years, possibly raising children) is somehow a blow to the supposed “sanctity of marriage.”

Many conservatives, as well as liberals, agree that a constitutional amendment defining marriage between a man and a woman is misguided. Jonah Goldberg believes that states should decide for themselves. George Will argues, “constitutionalizing social policy is generally a misuse of fundamental law.” David Brooks thinks that gay marriage would promote a healthier homosexual lifestyle. I agree with all three, with one notable and essential corollary.

First, on the oft-forgotten issue of federalism. Without it, as Goldberg quips, “51 percent of the population could give 49 percent a wedgie.” Some issues, like licensing, are best left administered by individual states. There are more French-Canadians in Maine than in Nevada, so Maine laws are more friendly to Franco-Americans than Nevada. National control of licensing would not only be an intrusion of federal power on states, it would also exacerbate the already difficult process of obtaining a good fake ID that we college students rely on so dearly.

A constitutional amendment would also set a dangerous precedent. Not only would it be the first amendment restricting rights to citizens, but it would open a Pandora’s box for other issues to be consitutionalized. What will stop abortion groups or the anti-gun lobby from pushing for a constitutional amendment?

For too long, the perception of homosexual culture has been of a rampant sex-fueled group with little concern for sexually transmitted diseases, family life or entering mainstream American culture. They were on the outskirts of American life, and most incorrectly believed that’s where homosexuals wanted to be.

For homosexuals to be productive members of our democratic society, they need to be granted the same basic rights. In the end, however, it boils down to human rights. Deciding who to love and marry is the most basic of these rights.

Until homosexuals are seen as equals in the eyes of the government, they will remain outsiders looking in.




Respond to this article