Commentary

The Garment & Citizen urges you to forget for a moment all of the arguments about whether or not gay couples should be allowed to get married. Put aside thoughts on whether individuals are born gay or become gay. Disengage from any wondering about whether gay marriages will somehow undermine the unions of heterosexual couples.

We ask you to think about this, instead: Do you really want to tinker with our state’s constitution to prohibit gay marriages?

Keep in mind that our state’s constitution has done a fine job over the past 159 years, providing an over-arching authority on rights and responsibilities while leaving room for society to make adjustments as needed over time.

Our California Supreme Court—a body of judges who decide important cases based on their understandings of the constitution—recently ruled that gay couples can be married in California.

Soon a lot of folks will set about efforts to pass an amendment to our state’s constitution that would override that decision by prohibiting gay marriages.

Many opponents of gay marriage will tell you that such an amendment is a necessary adjustment because the Supreme Court overturned the will of the majority of our people. The judges struck down a law that prohibited gay marriages, you see. The law had been passed by the people in a statewide referendum. Therefore, some drum-beaters will say, the judges over-stepped their authority.

The truth is that it is the job of our courts to strike down the will of the majority—whether it’s been expressed through the ballot box or legislation from our elected representatives—whenever we pass laws that violate basic rights deemed to be protected by our constitution.

The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision more than 50 years ago to strike down the racial segregation of school systems in many states seems like a common-sense judgment—at least when viewed from the vantage point of today. At the time, however, the decision incited howls of protest from folks who claimed that the justices had struck down the will of the majority in those states.

The Supreme Court’s critics might have been right about the will of the majority at the time. They were wrong to think that a majority has the right to violate the terms of any valid constitution by denying basic rights to anyone.

So please disregard anyone who tries to paint our current California Supreme Court as a bunch of out-of-touch legal elites. Their duty is to the constitution, and they have upheld the obligation in this matter. Agree or disagree with their decision—but also ask yourself this: When was the last time you questioned a ruling from the state’s high court? What makes you think the justices went off the deep end all of the sudden when it came to their legal reasoning on gay marriage?

The Garment & Citizen asks you to keep such considerations in mind as the debate over gay marriage rolls forward. We urge you to focus on the key questions: Should human beings who are gay have the same rights as human beings who are heterosexual when it comes to the government’s role in granting and recognizing marriages? Or should we change our constitution to deny a specific right to a specific segment of the population based on a certain characteristic they share?

Shut out the shrill voices that rise up on both sides of the debate. Think deeply about the notion of excluding a certain segment of the population based on some characteristic.

Think about your own characteristics—the color of your skin, the faith you hold dear, your health or infirmity, the size of your paycheck.

Consider all of that and then decide whether we should change our constitution to limit the rights of gays solely because they are gay.

The decision is yours—and don’t blame the judges for putting you in this position if it comes to a statewide vote.

Understand that any effort to amend our constitution through the ballot box takes our courts out of the picture.

Understand that a vote on gay marriage will make you the judge.

Understand the awesome responsibility that goes with the job.

—Jerry Sullivan, Editor & Publisher