Santa Cruz Good Times

Tuesday
Sep 30th
Text size
  • Increase font size
  • Default font size
  • Decrease font size

It’s About Justice For All, Not Marriage For Some

Col rev.Deb

 

Marriage equality was merely the context of the recent marriage equality cases before the US Supreme Court. Neither case addressed the fundamental right of same-sex couples to marry. The content of both cases was discrimination, challenging laws that treated citizens unequally. Since the legacy of both rulings is not issue specific, there is huge impact towards a more just society for all.

The recent refusal of The Supreme Court to rule on the Proposition 8 case left standing the decision under appeal of the 9th Circuit Federal Court. In an absolutely brilliant and comprehensive analysis, Judge Vaughn Walker overturned Prop 8 declaring it to be unconstitutional under the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Established right after slavery, it insures equal protection under the law by prohibiting states from enacting laws, through legislation or the ballot, that infringe upon the rights of its citizens. Prop 8, the largest initiative in U.S. history, had an unprecedented amount of support on both sides. Amicus (Friends of the Court) briefs, submitted on behalf of overturning Prop 8 spanned an extremely wide array of supporters including the U.S. Justice Department, Mexican-American Legal Defense Fund (MALDEF), and the California Coalition of Churches. The support was partially about marriage equality, but primarily motivated by the dangerous threat Prop 8 was to minority rights.

The 4tharticle of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), defines marriage as being between a man and a woman. Under this provision, the Federal Government has been denying approximately 1,100 federal benefits to legally married same-sex couples that it has been granting opposite-sex couples. The surviving spouse benefits include social security and exemption from inheritance taxes. The federal case, Windsor vs U.S., ruled this violated the 5th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, prohibiting the Federal Government from denying rights without due process. Not yet tried is the aspect of DOMA that allows states to not honor same-sex marriages of other states. Hence, a couple legally married in their home state would not be related once they cross the border to a state that does not recognize their marriage.

Once again, in both marriage equality cases, the freedom to marry was merely the context. The real content was about freedom from discrimination. What has been on trial in these cases is justice, not marriage equality which is a battle still to be fought. The rulings do, however, reinforce protections for all US citizens from unfair treatment. Essentially, what was on trial in the Prop 8 case, Hollingsworth vs Perry, was the intent of the initiative. Prop 8 was not just any law; it was an amendment to California’s constitution that carved out the pre-existing rights of some of its citizens. Was Prop 8 really about removing any legal ambiguities about marriage by clearly defining it as being between a man and a woman, or was it about rescinding the right of same-sex couples to marry?

California is unique in this regard. In May 2008, the California Supreme Court ruled that the freedom of same-sex couples to marry was a pre-existing right under the state’s constitution that had been unduly denied them. The state’s constitution guarantees equal protection under the law and non-discrimination based upon sex. Some applicants were denied marriage licenses solely because of their sex. During the entire Prop 8 campaign same-sex marriages were already taking place. Hollingsworth vs Perry was not about the freedom to marry being granted, but the freedom to marry being taken away.

The ruling against Prop 8 determined that the Prop 8 campaign deliberately attempted to marginalize same-sex couples. Its defeat protects vulnerable citizens from the transitory winds of public opinion and reaffirms that no populace has the power to vote away constitutional rights. For the safety of democracy, it needed to be overturned. Legally, its defeat is not so much about marriage as it is protecting the rights of the minority against the majority. If the Prop 8 precedent remained anything could happen, such as the public voting to not publicly educate children born on US soil if their parents are non-documented, or to ban non-Christians from holding high governmental positions. I know that Prop 8 proponents are frustrated feeling like their vote doesn’t matter. They fail to understand that they didn’t have the right to take away someone else’s rights. Furthermore, Prop 8 opponents think it is all about marriage and are failing to see their efforts as championing justice for all.  Let’s proclaim we are One, not we won.

Rev Deborah L. Johnson, a lifetime social justice activist, is founding minister of Inner Light Ministries in Soquel, CA.  www.innerlightministries.com

Comments (0)Add Comment

Write comment
smaller | bigger

busy
 

Share this on your social networks

Bookmark and Share

Share this

Bookmark and Share

 

Reflecting Glass

Composer Philip Glass’ first trip to Big Sur was by motorcycle; little did he know that he’d establish a music festival there six decades later.

 

Rosh Hashanah

Rosh Hashanah, the Jewish New Year, occurs this year during Libra, the sign of creating right relations with all aspects life and with earth’s kingdoms. We contemplate (the Libra meditation) forgiveness, which means, “to give for another.” Forgiveness is not pardon. It’s a sacrifice (fire in the heart, giving from the heart). Forgiveness is giving up for the good of the other. This is the law of evolution (the path of return).

 

The New Tech Nexus

Community leaders in science and technology unite to form web-based networking program

 

Film, Times & Events: Week of September 26

Santa Cruz area movie theaters >
Sign up for Good Times weekly newsletter
Get the latest news, events

RSS Feed Burner

 Subscribe in a reader

Latest Comments

 

Wurst Case Scenario

Venus Spirits releases agave spirit, Renee Shepherd on planting garlic, Sausagefest 2014, and wine harvest in full swing

 

Do you think you are addicted to technology?

Santa Cruz  |  Unemployed

 

Best of Santa Cruz County

The 2013 Santa Cruz County Readers' Poll and Critics’ Picks It’s our biggest issue of the year, and in it, your votes—more than 6,500 of them—determined the winners of The Best of Santa Cruz County Readers’ Poll. New to the long list of local restaurants, shops and other notables that captured your interest: Best Beer Selection, Best Locally Owned Business, Best Customer Service and Best Marijuana Dispensary. In the meantime, many readers were ever so chatty online about potential new categories. Some of the suggestions that stood out: Best Teen Program and Best Web Design/Designer. But what about: Dog Park, Church, Hotel, Local Farm, Therapist (I second that!) or Sports Bar—not to be confused with Bra. Our favorite suggestion: Best Act of Kindness—one reader noted Café Gratitude and the free meals it offered to the Santa Cruz Police Department in the aftermath of recent crimes. Perhaps some of these can be woven into next year’s ballot, so stay tuned. In the meantime, enjoy the following pages and take note of our Critics’ Picks, too, beginning on page 91. A big thanks for voting—and for reading—and an even bigger congratulations to all of the winners. Enjoy.  -Greg Archer, EditorBest of Santa Cruz County Readers’ Poll INDEX

 

Apricot Wine for Dessert

Thomas Kruse Winery, a participant in the new Santa Clara Wine Trail, has been around for a long time—since 1971, to be exact. When our little group arrived to try some wine at the Kruses’ low-key tasting room, Thomas Kruse and his wife Karen were there to greet us. Theirs is a small operation, and they’re proud to offer quality wine at affordable prices. “Because we are small and low-tech, it’s easy to relate to the whole winemaking process,” says Karen—and the Kruses take pride in making wine “just like it has been made for centuries.”