Logic doesn't always apply when it comes to gay marriage
Dan Walters, Sacramento Bee
July 13, 2005

Logic and rationality only occasionally - and incidentally - are involved in the political process, which tends to be driven by more subjective factors such as supposition, superstition, perception, emotion, calculation and ambition.

Logically, it would be difficult to deny same-sex couples the right to have their relationships officially recognized through marriage. Homosexuality has been part of the human experience for countless centuries, even though only rarely acknowledged, and contemporary science has amassed considerable evidence that a substantial number of people are simply wired by genetics to prefer those of the same gender.

If homosexuality is innate, rather than a "preference" or a "lifestyle," then human rights equity - what constitutional law calls "equal protection" - would indicate that same-sex couples should have the same right to officially recognized marriages as those of opposite genders.

It is, however, not an issue that lends itself to rationality or logic. Those who oppose gay marriage see it in religious, or at least moral, terms. They contend that the Bible confines marriage to those of opposite genders - "Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve," in one popular slogan - and that official recognition of same-sex unions would be immoral and undermine traditional families.

"The attack on marriage continues Tuesday," reads a notice dispatched by the Campaign for Children and Families in advance of a hearing before the state Senate Judiciary Committee on a newly revived gay marriage measure.

That view is not to be taken lightly, nor dismissed as bigotry, as some gay marriage advocates are wont to do. Those who oppose gay marriage are utterly sincere in their belief that marriage as an institution would be threatened, as sincere as those who believe that denying gay couples the right to marry is a denial of their civil rights. And opposition to gay marriage may be the prevailing view of California voters, who passed a law to that effect just a few years ago.

That vote notwithstanding, California has been edging toward gay marriage for several years. A number of recent laws recognize "domestic partnerships" and the like, and most governmental and corporate employers offer full family benefits to same-sex couples - along with employees' partners of the opposite gender.

California has moved so far in its recognition of same-sex relationships, in fact, that no other partial steps may be possible, and full marriage may be the only remaining barrier. A San Francisco judge has ruled against California laws barring same-sex marriages, which means the issue will make its way to a state Supreme Court that's dominated by Republican appointees but generally steers a middle-of-the-road judicial path. And the Legislature finds itself again in a full-fledged political battle over the issue.

Its political complexity was demonstrated last month when an otherwise very liberal Assembly rejected a measure to sanction same-sex marriages. A dozen Democrats - some from personal and/or religious conviction, others from political calculation - refused to vote for the bill.

San Francisco Democrat Mark Leno kept the issue alive by taking an Assembly bill that had already cleared that house and was pending in the Senate, stripping out its contents and inserting the provisions of the measure that the Assembly had already rejected. That revised bill came before the Senate Judiciary Committee Tuesday. While its chairman, Orange County Democrat Joe Dunn, kept a tight lid on the witnesses for both sides - implicitly acknowledging that their testimony, however heartfelt, was not going to change any legislative minds - the deeply felt emotions poured out of witnesses; proponents demanding what they characterized as human equality, and opponents denouncing gay marriage as an affront to God's law.

Assembly Bill 849 cleared the committee with Democratic votes, as expected, and it probably will pass the Senate, but the Assembly would still have to change its collective mind and Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger would have to sign it, both of which are unlikely.

Gay marriage is likely to be a burning political issue for years to come - unless, of course, the Supreme Court does the unexpected.