CAPTIMES: Seize opening for marriage equality
Marriage equality, an on-and-off issue in election campaign seasons going back to the mid-1990s, is back with a vengeance for the 2010 cycle.
But this time it could play very differently -- if Democrats and responsible Republicans choose to recognize the arguments for removing barriers to same-sex marriage that the judge of the U.S. District Court in San Francisco outlined when he struck down California’s Proposition 8.
That’s not a pipe dream. It’s practical politics.
The decision by the judge to reject Proposition 8 -- the bar on marriage equality narrowly passed by the state’s voters in 2008 -- means that the issue is probably headed for the U.S. Supreme Court. But before it gets there, it will be dragged down the campaign trail once more.
That’s true in California, for sure. But it is also true in Wisconsin, a state that has wrestled with the marriage equality issue for a number of years.
Judge Vaughn Walker’s eloquent argument in the Proposition 8 case offers new language for advocates of marriage equality.
“Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license,” Walker wrote. “Indeed, the evidence shows Proposition 8 does nothing more than enshrine in the California Constitution the notion that opposite-sex couples are superior to same-sex couples. Because California has no interest in discriminating against gay men and lesbians, and because Proposition 8 prevents California from fulfilling its constitutional obligation to provide marriages on an equal basis, the court concludes that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional.”
That is a simple yet profound statement -- as is Walker’s observation on why civil liberties cannot be put to a vote.
“Conjecture, speculation and fears are not enough,” explained the judge. “Still less will the moral disapprobation of a group or class of citizens suffice, no matter how large the majority that shares that view. The evidence demonstrated beyond serious reckoning that Proposition 8 finds support only in such disapproval. As such, Proposition 8 is beyond the constitutional reach of the voters or their representatives.”
These are just a few lines from a very long ruling. But they are important because they offer candidates who are inclined to support same-sex marriage language that can and should be used in making the case that discrimination is wrong -- even if a majority might choose to discriminate. It was wrong when Southern majorities discriminated against African-Americans. It was wrong when Southwestern majorities discriminated against Latinos. It was wrong when majorities in Plains states and the West discriminated against American Indians. It is just wrong. And it can and should be explained as such.
For too long, otherwise high-minded political players -- including many Wisconsin contenders -- have allowed their responses to the debate over same-sex marriage to be defined by a fear that voters cannot be reasoned with on this issue.
That might have been true 15 years ago, or perhaps even four years ago -- when Wisconsinites narrowly voted in favor of discrimination.
But time has not hardened positions. It has softened them. More Americans support same-sex marriage today than in the past. Solid majorities of young people favor removing all discriminatory barriers. And even among older Americans who are still uncomfortable with an expansive view of marriage, there are clear majorities in support of civil unions, domestic partnership registries and related initiatives to afford protections to same-sex couples.
This is not the time to run from a volatile social issue.
This is the time to seize the opening and make sincere, unapologetic and distinctly American arguments for fairness -- as Wisconsin Sen. Russ Feingold and Wisconsin Congresswoman Tammy Baldwin have been doing for some time.
This is the time to state, bluntly, that discrimination is wrong and that it is at odds with the Constitution and with our best understanding of the phrase “equal protection under the law.”
That’s what Wisconsin’s Henry Sanders, a candidate for the Democratic nomination for lieutenant governor, is saying as he uses his campaign website to promote a marriage-equality petition drive.
That’s what Wisconsin’s Ben Manski, a 77th Assembly District candidate, was saying when he immediately responded to the California decision with the announcement: “With this decision, the tide has turned. California’s Northern District obliterated any claim that any government enjoys a rational basis for enforcing marriage inequality. As Madison’s newest representative, I will build on this momentum by advancing an Equal Rights Amendment to the Wisconsin Constitution.”
Sanders and Manski get it. The debate over marriage equality is on.
That prospect ought not be feared. Not any more.
Share your opinion on this topic by sending a letter to the editor to tctvoice@madison.com. Include your full name, hometown and phone number. Your name and town will be published. The phone number is for verification purposes only. Please keep your letter to 250 words or less.
