It was 1775 and the oppressive hand of a tyrant was choking his subjects, so much so they wrote: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness …”
In 1862 the President of the United States issued a proclamation stating, “That on the 1st day of January, A.D. 1863, all persons held as slaves … shall be then, thenceforward, and forever free...”
During a December evening in 1955 in Selma Ala., a tired Rosa Parks took a stand by sitting, and started a revolution.
On Feb. 12, 2004, San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom, legally married to a woman for the past two years, ordered his city clerk to redesign the marriage license application so that it was gender neutral. Then they started issuing marriage licenses to more than 3,000 gay couples.
According to CNN, the first of more than 6,000 people to be married were Phyllis Lyon, 80, and Del Martin, 83, who have been together 51 years and founded the nation’s first lesbian organization, the “Daughters of Bilitis,” in 1955.
Word spread fast in that city known as “Baghdad by the Bay.” Then it hit the news wires and word spread fast across the Internet and the world. Couples are reported to have flown from as far as Africa to participate in what is clearly the largest act of civil disobedience in recent memory.
The practical effect of this civil disobedience by a mayor, who is acting bravely in challenging state law, is that the licenses will likely be invalidated and then the real battle begins. The city of San Francisco has already filed suit against the state, challenging the ban on same-sex marriage.
In our State Constitution, as in the U.S. Constitution, we have an equal protection clause, which states that: “A person may not be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law or denied equal protection of the laws.”
Marriage has traditionally been an issue reserved to the states to regulate. Historically there has been little to regulate, besides race, and don’t marry your sister. It was the U.S.
Supreme Court case of Loving vs. Virginia, which ruled that the races could legally intermarry, based on equal protection grounds. Prior to that, blacks and whites in Virginia could not legally get married.
Mayor Newsom wrote in his letter to the city clerk: “Upon taking the oath of office, becoming the mayor of the city and county of San Francisco, I swore to uphold the Constitution of the State of California. Article I, section 7, subdivision (a) of the California Constitution provides that “[a] person may not be... denied equal protection of the laws.”
“The California courts have interpreted the equal protection clause of the California Constitution to apply to lesbians and gay men and have suggested that laws that treat homosexuals differently from heterosexuals are suspect. The California courts have also stated that discrimination against gay men and lesbians is invidious. The California courts have held that gender discrimination is suspect and invidious as well. The Supreme Courts in other states have held that equal protection provisions in their state constitutions prohibit discrimination against gay men and lesbians with respect to the rights and obligations flowing from marriage. It is my belief that these decisions are persuasive and that the California Constitution similarly prohibits such discrimination.”
This is a watershed event in the history of civil rights. Time will tell whether Mayor Newsom’s actions are visionary, or vain efforts in the face of overwhelming oppression by the religious right.
It should be noted that the religious right, (otherwise known as the Republican Party) believes that if we allow two women to marry, after 51 years, it will lead to polygamy, and marriages between people and animals. The absurdity of these arguments is surpassed only by the ease with which they are presented as fact. Let us remember these are the same people who believed that if we allowed sodomy, child abuse would go up and the very fabric of our society would be torn. They were wrong then and they are wrong today.
These right wing activists who are so concerned about the “institution of marriage” and “saving it” should take a look at their representatives and the numbers. The divorce rate is over 70 percent for first-time marriages. Heterosexuals are allowed to marry “by mistake.” Take Britney Spears, for example. Her marriage lasted 55 hours, yet the long term relationship of Lyon and Martin, which at 51 years and still counting, is considered insubstantial.
If they really wanted to “save” marriage, why not outlaw divorce? Because the practical effect would be that no one would get married. As it is, marriage is in a tremendous state of decline. So why all the ruckus over gay marriage? Because fear mongers and bigots worry that what other people are doing will some how, some way affect their lives.
The great unanswered questions of the day are these: What is the harm the anti-gay marriage forces are really scared of? How does one person’s marriage impact anyone else? What is the social cost, and benefit, of allowing two people who have for decades loved, cared for, and provided for each other, to marry?
I agree that there is a nominal fiscal cost — Medicare and Social Security might have to pay some spousal awards, but they would have to do that if a lesbian married a man anyway. To deny marriage based on the cost savings would be appalling, but I wouldn’t put it past a Republican to think it. Does my law partner’s marriage affect my loving relationship? If only to set a good example, then yes.
At the end of it all, ask yourself this question: How does your neighbor’s marriage impact your life? Do the black and white couple next door set a bad example for your kids because they are different races? Does the marriage between the Caucasian old man, who married the Japanese old lady hurt you? This is really no different. Race is a matter of genetics. Some day we’ll figure out and accept that sexual orientation is too. When that happens, the Supreme Court must recognize that equal protection applies to gays and lesbians.
History has shown that one man with courage is a majority. Today that man is Mayor Gavin Newsom. It also has shown that no great deed happens without a few cries of outrage and moral indignation, and unsurprisingly, always from the losing side.
Originally published in the Santa Monica Daily Press print edition on February 24, 2004. Read the original PDF.