The declaration of support by US President Barack Obama for gay marriage last week has revived the long-drawn controversy over unions between two persons belonging to the same sex. For almost two years now, the gay marriage debate has been eerily quiet while both sides awaited the decision of the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth District on the constitutionality of California’s Proposition 8.
On Tuesday, North Carolina’s voters on Tuesday approved an amendment to the state constitution affirming that marriage may only be a union between a man and a woman. Earlier, Vice President Joe Biden said in a Sunday talk show that he was completely comfortable with gay marriages, forcing Obama to categorically support gay marriages.
The debate over same-sex marriage first stirred the Americans’ consciousness in 1993 when the Hawaii Supreme Court ruled that denying licenses to same-sex partners violated the Hawaii constitution unless there was a “compelling state interest.” In 2004, Massachusetts became the first state to legalize same-sex marriage. Now, six states allow gay marriages: Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, and Vermont, plus Washington, D.C. and Oregon’s Coquille and Washington state’s Suquamish Indian tribes. Washington and Maryland have also passed laws allowing gay marriages, but both are awaiting approval by voters in the November election.
Worldwide, ten countries have begun allowing same-sex couples to marry: Argentina, Belgium, Canada, Iceland, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, South Africa and Sweden.
I don’t see the Philippines catching up on gay rights. The country has remained centuries behind in its cultural and religious beliefs because of the stranglehold of the Roman Catholic Church. In fact, President Aquino, through spokesman Edwin Lacierda categorically stated that his administration is not ready to accept the concept of gay marriage. Speaker Sonny Belmonte also said the House of Representatives is not keen on passing a law that would allow same-sex marriage. They would rather allow ignorance, inequality and bigotry to prevail over the country than offend the Church.
In November 2008, while America was upholding the result of decades of battle for civil rights by electing Obama, an African American, to the presidency, tens of thousands of Californians were institutionalizing inequality, injustice and bigotry by passing Proposition 8, which sought to ban gay marriages in California. They wanted to include in the state constitution a provision that would deprive a group of people of their right to happiness and equal protection, and on the same breath would rather protect the rights of chickens, pigs and cows than those of their fellow human beings.
Californians voted 52% to 47% to pass Proposition 8. Sixty-three (63) percent of these same Californians voted to mandate proper handling of farm animals through Proposition 2.
Proposition 8 sought to include in the state constitution the words: “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.”
The framers of the constitution of both the state and the United States of America, included the protection of individual rights precisely to ensure that such rights could not be taken away by legislative or administrative action, or even by the “tyranny of the majority.”
In a ruling that revoked an earlier proposition to ban gay marriage, the California Supreme Court correctly pointed out that the right to marry is one such constitutional right that must be provided equally to all people desiring to marry.
Those who oppose gay marriages claim that the union of same-sex couples undermines the “traditional” definition of marriage and thus poses a threat to the institution of marriage. In March 2005, US Judge Richard Kramer noted that a violation of individual rights could not be justified by its historic acceptance. It must also be pointed out that more than 18,000 same sex marriages have been legalized in the US for years, but the “traditional” institution of marriage has not been put in peril, nor has society collapsed. Nor have these marriages degrade the marriage of traditional man-woman couples.
The legalization of gay marriages does not require those who have moral objection to them, to recognize or approve of these marriages. Neither does it require priests or church ministers to perform or bless such marriages. Neither does it require schools, as falsely claimed by gay marriage opponents, to teach that there is “no difference” between the traditional man-woman marriages and same-sex marriages.
Many proponents cite the Bible saying that the Holy Scriptures describes marriage as that between a man and a woman. These religious fundamentalists tend to forget that gays are God’s creation, too, so why treat them differently? Why deprive them of their right to be happy, to spend their life with the person they love, and experience the joys of having a family while enjoying the benefits and protection of the law? Can they honestly say that God feels differently about gays?
Many gay couples have been together for 20, 30, even 40 years, far longer than many traditional marriages. As correctly pointed out by the San Jose Mercury News in an editorial: “All couples who exchange vows know, in their own hearts, the depth and spiritual meaning of their union. That is for them, not others, to determine.”
I say, amen.