California Dreamin'

The reaction of right-wingers to the recent judicial decision overturning proposition 8 in California was predictably harsh. Here's what our old pal Newt Gingrich (who likes marriage so much he got married three times) had to say:

"Judge Walker's ruling overturning Prop 8 is an outrageous disrespect for our Constitution and for the majority of people of the United States who believe marriage is the union of husband and wife. In every state of the union from California to Maine to Georgia, where the people have had a chance to vote they've affirmed that marriage is the union of one man and one woman. Congress now has the responsibility to act immediately to reaffirm marriage as a union of one man and one woman as our national policy."

What's notable about Newt's statement is that he conflates two very different things. One, our Constitution, was the relevant document on which Judge Walker's ruling was rightly based. The other, popular opinion, has no bearing on the question of whether gays have constitutionally protected marriage rights.

I wish that Newt Gingrich was wrong about the popular opinion of gay marriage in this country. Indeed I hope that someday gay marriage will seem ordinary and non-controversial. However, today a lot of people in the U.S. do feel threatened by gay marriage. But does the fact that doing something makes some people uneasy mean that it is unconstitutional? Of course not.

The whole thrust of our Constitution and Bill of Rights is to defend the rights of people to do whatever they choose, provided they do not infringe on the rights of others to pursue life, liberty, and happiness. The burden of proof is on those who would prohibit gay marriage to show how gay marriage substantially infringes the rights of others. We don't actually have the right to live in a world where we can never be offended. We can choose not to read offensive magazines, watch offensive commercials, or listen to offensive song lyrics. Likewise, we can choose not to attend a gay wedding.

Religious groups will not be asked to approve, still less to perform, gay marriage ceremonies. Politicians, Rabbis, Priests, Ministers and private persons will still be allowed their free-speech rights to condemn gay marriage as wrong. What is new is that gay people, for the first time in U.S. history, have gained enough social acceptance that they are now asserting their full rights as citizens. Just like everybody else, gays deserve the right to live alone, to live with an unmarried partner, or to get married. The redemption of this right may violate religious teachings, it in no way violates our secular constitution.