There's a Rainbow Disconnect in California

While Barack Obama's victory of the White House is a victory for intelligence, justice, and tolerance, it was intolerance that won this Election Day in California, with the approval of Proposition 8.

Gay marriage. The only social issue I can imagine being anywhere near as controversial is abortion. Proponents claim granting equal rights and equal recognition will lead to equality for all and the solidity of the institution of marriage. Opponents say the exact opposite. Which is right?

Honestly, the proponents have this one. Allowing same-gender couples the right to marry and to be legally recognized as "married" will lead to tolerance, a more solid end to injustice, and it will bolster the concept of marriage by granting its rights to all people. The truth is, I haven't found a single dictionary under the sun that defines marriage as union between man and woman. The only tome that touches on the subject is the Bible (noted for its multitude of vastly differing translations, rendering many of its more blurry admonitions suspect). And don't we have a thing in this country called "separation of church and state"? The country, while founded on Christian principles, was also founded on the belief that no single religious institution, no matter how powerful, had the right to force its doctrine on others.

Opponents will now say that the same rule would apply to gay marriage supporters, who are obviously forcing some kind of wicked, atheistic, liberal code on America's decent, god-fearing citizens. I would say to them-- what about all the Jesus-loving Christians out there who identify as gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, etc...? There are also Christian Straight-Allies. Besides, there is no religious backbone behind the pro-equality argument because the argument has no business being religious in the first place. If it were widely seen as a matter of church and state, same-sex marriage would be legal in this country.

Furthermore, Proposition 8 overturned an existing decision by the State of California's Supreme Court just a few months earlier. Is this simply the system of checks and balances at work, or an effort to undermine the democratic system itself for the will of a few hatemongers and the voters (most of whom are actually good people) whom they seduce with their scary, apocalyptic, apocryphal rhetoric?

The latter.

People have said that if gays can have many of the same rights as legally married couples, why push for the seemingly extraneous step of deciding what legal lingo to use to describe it? The answer is quite simple. It's not equality until it is equality in paper and in the real world. The Emancipation Proclamation was all well and good, but it was meaningless until every African-American in America was free.

I'd like to close by reminding everybody of the concept of "majority rule, minority rights." The majority need to find a way to have their will carried out without undermining (or, in this case, bait-dangling and pulling back in) the rights of the minority.