Sticks and Stones May Break Bones, But Words Can Deny Human Rights

Mary Freeman, Managing Editor

Mary_Freeman@csumb.edu

April 7, 2008

Over Spring Break I had a late night epiphany. I was lying in a pallet on the floor of my best friend, Tasha’s, apartment. It was an old familiar scene: Tasha, me, and the third leg of our 10-year-old tripod, Brandon. We were discussing how odd it was that Tasha was now married, when Brandon brought our 2 o’clock in the morning conversation to a halt with one comment, “You guys are so lucky. I can never get married, even though I really want to one day.” At that moment, we all realized, as much as we think we are three parts of the same person, one of us will always be treated differently. On March 4, the California Supreme Court held a three-hour discussion to clarify whether Proposition 22, passed in 2000, prohibits gay marriage or merely prohibits the state’s ability to recognize out-of-state same-sex marriages. They will arrive at a decision regarding the issue in June. This November, another piece of legislation, Initiative 07-0068, might make it onto the ballots, and if passed would surpass Proposition 22, by defining marriage in the state constitution, assuring that the courts and lawmakers cannot find a way to allow gay marriage. 

Both of these pieces of legislation should never have been and never should be passed. The truth of the matter is that the State has no real vested interest, and neither do the people, in banning gay marriage. 

I understand that Proposition 22 was passed, by the public, with an unimpressive 61.4 percent majority vote; however, in matters such as these the “public will,” has no place. Just because the public passes a law, does not make it constitutional or right. In 1948, Brown vs. Board of Education proved exactly that. 

I find it kind of ironic that many of the proponents of this legislation argue that they need to protect marriage from being redefined, but they are the ones pushing legislation forward, adding to and changing the definitions already found in the law books. Perhaps the state constitution is vague on this issue because it is a living, fluid document, and as society changes, so does it?

Anti-gay legislation is not defending marriage; it is attacking gays. It is the conservative fascists that promote this sort of hate-breeding legislation that feel the need to exclude others. It is they who feel the need to draw line, they who need to be separate, to be superior, and it is all based on mere semantics.

Speaking of semantics, marriage and civil unions might be becoming closer to synonyms, but they will never be the same. The message that this sends to our children is that one group is different from the other and that one group does not deserve the same status as the other. This is not about definitions of words, and if it were that would be rather pathetic (this coming from someone who has quite a love affair with words). This is an assault against a group, an attempt to send a message to a group of people that they are different, that they are lesser than. 

That night, with Tasha and Brandon, all we could think about is how Brandon’s life would always be fundamentally different, and not just because he kisses men. There are people out there that will treat him as if he is a different breed of human, and the laws, no matter how wrong they are, still reflect that today.