Schwarzenegger Nervous About Same-Sex Marriage
By Isaiah Z. Sterrett (09/16/05)
IT WAS WITH considerable pluck that the California General Assembly recently voted to allow same-sex marriage. It was with considerably less courage that Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger—billed as a social liberal during the campaign—immediately resolved to veto the legislation, not on the basis of opposition to same-sex marriage, but because he now believes courts or another initiative should decide the issue. “[T]he matter should be determined not by legislative action …but by court decision or another vote of the people of our state,” he said.
The obvious point, but one which must be made, is that California’s action is entirely different than what Mayor Gavin Newsom of San Francisco did, and, indeed, entirely different than what the Massachusetts Supreme Court did in 2003. Unlike the General Assembly, Mayor Newsom broke the law. He acted in his best interests, and perhaps even in the interests of his city, but he broke the law in doing so. That is very rarely acceptable, and it certainly wasn’t in this case. Newsom, as well as the various other local leaders who allowed same-sex marriage around the country, were completely out of line. Newsom exercised overwhelmingly arrogant judgment.
The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts was somewhat craftier than Newsom, but just as wrong. What the Court ruled, in what must be one of the worst opinions ever delivered in the history of the Massachusetts judiciary, was that the state Constitution, written in 1780 and one of the most overtly religious documents in America, actually contains a right to same-sex marriage. It’s not up to democracy, the Court said: the state’s founding document, created over two-hundred years ago by John Adams, was clear in its enumeration of a sacred right to marry a member of the same sex. It was enough to make Roe v. Wade blush.
But same-sex marriage was not declared legal in California by judicial fiat. Real people—elected by the citizens of the state—voted to allow same-sex marriage. Representative democracy worked exactly as it’s supposed to. Gov. Schwarzenegger is wrong, consequently, to pretend that we’re dealing with some ungraspable question of the law. Legislators knew exactly what they were doing, and violated no law in doing it.
Importantly, Schwarzenegger’s behavior contrasts rather noticeably with President Bush’s posture on this issue. The proposed Constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage would have been tremendously bad public policy, but at least Bush was honestly opposed to same sex-marriage. Whereas he made reasoned arguments against it, the Schwarzenegger method is to blame legislators and shift responsibility. It is my personal view, with respect to the core issue at hand, that same-sex marriage—though certainly not a civil right—should be legal. For government to discriminate against same-sex couples on the sole basis of their sexual orientation, in the context of consensual relationships, is fundamentally wrong. But if the Governor disagrees, he should have the chutzpah to say so. His biceps may be strong, but his decisions on this issue certainly are not.
As for “the people,” why does Governor Schwarzenegger think we have legislators? The California initiative system is unique in the United States, and has had a genuinely positive impact on the state, but it mustn’t be construed to replace the duly elected Senators and Assemblypersons. Initiatives allow for populism and grass-roots politicking to a greater extent than can be seen in most other states, but the state is nevertheless one of representative democracy. And those representatives, elected by the same people who vote on initiatives, have decided same-sex marriage ought to be legal. One check on their decision is, of course, the Governor—but his position remains murky.
Perhaps incidentally, progress on the same-sex marriage issue is not exclusive to California. The United Kingdom is set to allow it in December, joining the Netherlands, Belgium, Spain, and Canada. I note that, within these nations, the human race still exists. Astonishingly, the fact that same-sex couples are now equal to heterosexual couples has not changed the number of heterosexual couples; in these countries—who’ve ignored “civilization,” according to President Bush—most men are still attracted to women, and most women are still attracted to men. Women are still getting pregnant, and men are still happy to impregnate them.
The arguments against same-sex marriage are unethical and paranoid. But we should respect people like George Bush and Australian Prime Minister John Howard for actually making those arguments, as opposed to Gov. Schwarzenegger, who’s very conspicuously avoiding the issue.
© Copyright 2005 by Isaiah Z. Sterrett
(Printer friendly version) Email: Isaiah Z. Sterrett
