Who should have final say on gay marriage?

ShareThis

Gay marriage is the law in California -- for now -- the result of a 4-3 ruling last month by the state's Supreme Court. But the court's controversial, closely decided decision likely won't be the last word.California's secretary of state just certified an initiative for the November ballot that would amend the state's constitution to define marriage as between a man and a woman.Meantime, New York's Republican-controlled legislature has balked at passing a bill to legalize gay marriage in the Empire State. So New York Gov. David Paterson last month directed state agencies to work around the legislature.Is gay marriage too important to be left to the voters? Should judges have the last word? Is gay marriage a simple matter of fairness and equality? Ben Boychuk and Joel Mathis, the RedBlueAmerica columnists, tackle the issue.BEN BOYCHUKThirty-five years ago, seven Supreme Court justices said a woman's right to choose an abortion was constitutionally beyond the reach of the states.Yet, for some reason, abortion remains politically controversial. Now four judges in California have redefined marriage, disregarding the 4.5 million Californians who voted in 2000 that "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."But never mind the voters. Public opinion changes. Many polls today seem to suggest that voters favor gay marriage today. That doesn't make it right.Truth is, the conventional conservative arguments against gay marriage are insufficient. Yes, tradition and religion carry weight, but neither one is decisive. After all, the American Revolution overthrew many traditions.And appeals to the Bible or church doctrines cannot hold sway in a nation founded on the principle of religious freedom.Where does that leave us? With nature. Very simply, America was founded on an understanding of human nature -- "the law of nature and of nature's God." The primary -- but far from only -- purpose of marriage is procreation and child rearing. Encouraging and protecting the ancient understanding of marriage promotes successful child rearing. Anything else is secondary.That four judges would up-end thousands of years of common sense derived from the nature of things is the opposite of progress. Perhaps the voters are more sensible. We'll find out in November.JOEL MATHISWhen it comes to marriage, conservatives might have you believe the Declaration of Independence celebrates "life, liberty and the pursuit of procreation." By narrowly defining marriage as a function of child rearing, they ignore all the ways real-world marriage has evolved over the years.Men no longer own their wives; blacks and whites are free to marry each other. These advancements recognize that state-sanctioned marriage is, broadly, about enabling loving couples care for each other.Opponents of marriage equality decry the California Supreme Court ruling as usurping the will of the voters, never mind that American governance was built to empower majorities without allowing them to tyrannize minorities. Opponents of gay unions know they're losing momentum -- that tolerance for discrimination is diminishing. So they concentrate their objections on the process -- which is, eternally, never good enough unless it produces the right result.In truth, the advancement of civil rights has always depended upon creative tension between the branches of government. The anti-Jim Crow court rulings of the 1940s and 1950s gave way to the legislative civil rights acts of the 1960s which enshrined our national commitment to equality between the races.It was controversial at the time; today, nobody in the mainstream would have it differently. Check back in 50 years -- we'll probably feel the same way about gay marriage.(Ben Boychuk and Joel Mathis blog daily at www.infinitemonkeysblog.com and joelmathis.blogspot.com.)(Distributed by Scripps Howard News Service, http://www.scrippsnews.com)