What Proposition 8 Entails

Genderless Marriage: A Brave New World?
By William T. Garner, Judge of the Los Angeles County Superior Court, Retired

It is no exaggeration to suggest that when California voters go to the polls in November to select a new president, they will also decide another issue at least as important. A “yes” vote on Proposition 8 will create a state constitutional amendment allowing marriage only between one man and one woman. A “no” vote will allow same-sex couples to marry.

What is the benefit and what is the harm of recognizing genderless marriage (marriage without a gender requirement)? Aside from being able to call themselves “married,” there appears to be no benefit to same-sex couples that did not exist at the time of the 4-3 California Supreme Court decision of May 15, 2008 legalizing genderless marriage. Section 297.5 of California Family Code already provided that persons who register as “domestic partners shall have the same rights, protections and benefits as married spouses.” However, the harm of official recognition of such relationships as “marriages” may be irreparable.

Although we cannot foretell the future with certainty, if a genderless marriage remains lawful, then so must a polygamous marriage be. The California Supreme Court effectively changed the traditional definition of marriage by holding that an individual must be allowed to establish a marriage with a person of either sex with whom the individual has chosen to share his or her life. If the person chosen is already married to another and all parties agree, in light of the court’s language, how can the state refuse to recognize a three-party marriage, or indeed place any limit on the number of marriage partners? We have recently seen the Texas and elsewhere that there are many people who want such a marriage, and it appears that choice now trumps tradition.

Many personal freedoms, including the free exercise of religion, may well be diminished or lost if the amendment is not adopted. Although the free exercise right is provided in both the U.S. and California Constitutions, because genderless marriage has now been held to be another constitutional right, who can doubt that there are judges who will decide that the marriage right must prevail over the religious one? Consider the following:
In Boston, the Catholic Charities recently closed down its adoption program because the state of Massachusetts insisted that every adoption agency must allow same-sex couples to adopt. Thereafter, an affiliated agency in San Francisco did the same.
A Methodist group in New Jersey lost part of is tax-exempt status because it refused to allow two lesbian couples to use its facility for a civil union ceremony.
In Albuquerque, a wedding photographer was ordered by the states Human Rights Commission to pay $6,637 to the attorney for a gay couple because she declined to photograph the couple’s commitment ceremony. She had explained to them that because of her religious beliefs she photographed only traditional marriages.

Continued tomorrow - - -