JOHNSON: What a shame that a court has to uphold love

By Bill Johnson, Rocky Mountain News (Contact)

Friday, May 16, 2008

My good friend Mark just doesn't get it. Then again, it doesn't register with a lot of folks.

I have spent, perhaps wasted, an entire afternoon debating with him the perception that same-sex marriage poses harm to the nation, and the wisdom - or lack of it - of the California Supreme Court's decision Thursday allowing such unions.

"It was four rogue (idiots) in black robes stating an opinion and not following the will of the people," Mark has thundered over and over.

I like him because he is consistent. He's against just about everything I favor. It fuels our friendship, almost as much as it drives me nuts.

I responded to him the way I have written here many times: I just don't get the fuss over two adult human beings wanting to commit themselves in a loving union, or why anyone would be against such a thing.

"The reason is it goes against every belief I hold, Mark said repeatedly.

"The purpose of marriage is to perpetuate blood lines . . . Can gays do that?"

That is Mark.

I am with the California Supreme Court, which, in its published decision, spoke words that ought to be bronzed and affixed somewhere in the Colorado Capitol:

"In contrast to earlier times, our state now recognizes that an individual's capacity to establish a loving and long-term committed relationship with another person and responsibility to care for and raise children does not depend upon the individual's sexual orientation . . ."

Like a person's race or gender, the court ruled, sexual orientation "does not constitute a legitimate basis upon which to deny or withhold legal rights."

Mark believes the decision will fairly doom the 231-year-old American experiment.

Me, I think it gives a lot of people hope.

"I am so pleased," said Coral Schmidt. "It is a very good step toward this country's being accepting of others. It . . . hurts no one and can only be beneficial."

She said the California decision was simply one more affirmation of who she and her partner, Stephany, know themselves to be. The Englewood couple held a commitment ceremony 14 years ago, then attempted to seal it by going to City Hall and asking for a wedding certificate.

"You can't have one," the clerk told the couple.

"Why not?" they replied. "Where does it say that?"

The clerk pulled out a document, and there it was.

"At least we went down there and tried," Coral Schmidt, 48, said.

Of the California decision, she said, "I will not now rush out there to get married. The struggle is still here, at home."

Besides, she said, she and Stephany have over the years drawn up legal papers that give them the same rights as most heterosexual, married couples enjoy.

Stephany legally changed her last name to Schmidt, a process that took months and involved many legal hoops.

They have drawn up a joint will, each has the other's power of attorney, and they have registered with Denver as domestic partners.

"We are as married as possible," Coral Schmidt said. "But if Colorado's court made the same ruling, I would be standing in line to get married.

"It is the recognition more than anything," she said. "It would confirm what we see and how we live anyway."

I called Kate Burns.

You may remember her and her partner, Sheila Schroeder, who were convicted recently in Denver County Court of trespassing when they refused to leave the Clerk and Recorder's Office after being denied a marriage license.

Are they so desperate to be married that they would now run to California? Kate Burns laughed.

"No, no, I'm a native of Colorado. I grew up here, and this is my home. It is the duty of every citizen to make their community better, so I'm staying and am going to fight the fight here."

While wonderful, the California decision "still is not enough," Kate Burns said. "Until we have the same rights as everyone else embedded in federal law, the fight will continue."

Take the time to listen.

The issue here is love, it is about unselfish commitment.

It is a shame that any court in this country actually has to uphold either.

johnsonw@RockyMountainNews.com or 303-954-2763.

• May 17, 2008

  9:03 a.m.

  Eagle5 writes:

  (This comment was removed by the site staff.)

• May 17, 2008

  9:53 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  mama_mia writes:

  I'm not an expert either, but the (more than a few) gay people I've known have been wonderfully kind, compassionate, upstanding members of society.

  I'm sorry you've had such bad luck with the kind of people you've met, Eagle, but just as there are good and bad straight people, there are good and bad gay people.

  Besides, since when do we deny marriage to "disgusting" people or "scum of society"? Convicted felons, child abusers, wife beaters, liars, cheats, rapists, bigots and racists are allowed to get married in the U.S. Even if your erroneous beliefs were true, they do not justify withholding a marriage license from two consenting adults.

• May 17, 2008

  10:50 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  IronmanCarmichael writes:

  One has to wonder whether Eagle5 found the few gay people he (she?) met "disgusting" because of some negative experience or because he (she?) already had been raised to believe "gays were part of the scum of society" (which, of course, is called prejudice). "Hitting on" others is certainly not an activity exclusively pursued by gays: many straight people hit on gays, thinking they can "change" them; many other straight people hit gays physically, if you want to talk disgusting.

• May 17, 2008

  3:32 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  Tom writes:

  theQ: If you were to go back 40 years or so, "any act" and "the sickist (sic) of our behavours (sic)" would surely include interracial heterosexual marriage. As a single gay man, but a romantic at heart, I am thrilled that I may actually be able to marry someone I love during my lifetime.

• May 17, 2008

  4:22 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  LetsThink writes:

  The answer is so simple.

  Using morality: God is opposed to homosexuality, because He designed men and women to marry. And He makes that very clear by several statements in His instruction book (the Bible).

  Amd we don't want to fight against God. Our eternity is based on our effort to obey Him.

  There are of course, other sins that God hates. And He enumerates them as well, in the Bible.

  So the choice is up to us. Either defy Him. Or obey His commands.

  I know which one I'm trying to do. And it ain't easy. So I understand the struggle.

  We all need to pray for each other that God will give us strength to fight our sin tendency.

• May 17, 2008

  10:31 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  freethinker07 writes:

  Your article has many errors.
  First, marriage by definition is between two genders. You can call it anything you want, but marriage is a legal term. Would it be okay for the legislature to permit interspecies marriage? Under the constitution require other states to recognize it? Remember, once you take away the definition, the meaning is up for grabs. Could I marry my Volvo? Would it need citizenship first?

  Second, is the love thing. If love is the only thing required, we already let anyone including sibling, live together. There are no cameras in the bedroom so who cares? Why does the California Supreme Court get involved? Why do you need a law?

  Parents love their children, would you support a law permitting a father to marry his adult children? I doubt it.

  Third, the recognition. They can't have it. I would not refer to a relationship between two people of the same gender as a marriage. I don't care what the Supreme Court says. The gay community are trying to legally force the religious community to grant them approval. It won't work.

  I don't need a law to let me love or to let me commit.

  I have presented these arguments to other liberals. The standard response is to call me names for raising these issues and to refuse to discuss them because they are "ridiculous."

• May 18, 2008

  8 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  p_myers661 writes:

  The matter not discussed here is a very large gorilla in a linen closet. The decision was to overturn a definition of marriage, in accordance with legal and societal precedents, by judicial fiat. This is a living demonstration of judicial activism.

  Such activism has consequences. The most logical is that it will almost certainly be overturned on appeal. The judges who approved this may have had their eyes on how a Supreme Court (no matter who wins or where it will end up there) will rule on this case. If it, as is quite possible, upholds the voters decision, it will set a solid precedent. If it approves of the decision, there will be a strong movement to pass a constitutional amendment mirroring the California initiative. There is little doubt in my mind that it will be approved quickly with the additional consequences of local elections replacing representatives until it is approved.

  No matter what you think of the decision or the reactions to it, the upcoming election most likely would have included a large number of "right wing fundamentalist conservatives" sitting it out to teach a lesson. Now there will be a reason for them to vote and volunteer. Now is not the time for gay unions to become marriages. It is the time when a judicial edict will create an opposite result. Perhaps this is one of the reasons some judges voted as they did.

  BTW, my stepson is gay and has the worst judgment in either friends or lovers. He would be the Elizabeth Taylor of Denver without the diamonds. My nephew is heterosexual, completely. His four children bear witness to all of his 21 years of wisdom. Now if only we could use the super glue in the right areas of his clothing.

  Marriage is for mature adults. That is one shortage that is equally distributed across all orientations.

• May 18, 2008

  11:32 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  LeroyQ writes:

  Aren't there more important issue in the world than how we can deny the GOD GIVEN RIGHT of homosexuals to marry?? Lots of comments here show just how utterly BIGOTED many Americans are towards people not like themselves (or more like themselves than they want to admit... Note to Senator Craig).
  I am heterosexual, but all this talk about marriage being between "one man and one woman" makes the idea of straight marriage unsettling to me. The state should have NO business telling people what to do with this most personal aspect of their lives. I say, abolish ALL state-sanctioning of marriage. Marriage, like sexual orientation or ones religion, is much too personal an issue for Big Government to get involved with.

• May 18, 2008

  11:55 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  LeroyQ writes:

  I remember when I was in 6th grade and I first became attracted to a girl my own age.
  Oh, how I wanted to be free of that guilt, the guilt of being ...(gasp) heterosexual!
  Now, I didn't want to be gay, exactly. But I certainly didn't want to have feelings for ...(gasp) girls! - My sworn enemies at the time.

  Fast forward to now. Well, I have accepted my heterosexuality. And I know I was born that way, and could not become gay no matter how I tried. Hell, praying to God certainly wouldn't help.

  But I have to wonder what it would be like to be in a world where the situation was reversed from how it is in our universe. -- Heterosexual marriage was banned, while gay marriage was sanctioned by both church and state. You could be fired from the military for being straight. Straights were sometimes assaulted and beaten up by homosexuals, and gays were the subject of many schoolkid jokes and name-calling. Straights were often equated with pedophiles. Etc.
  It all makes me pause. We still have SO far to go when it comes to this kind of bigotry, don't we?

• May 18, 2008

  3:26 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  LeroyQ writes:

  Sorry. It should be "and STRAIGHTS were the subject of many schoolkid jokes and name-calling"

• May 19, 2008

  6:58 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  Spencer writes:

  I don't understand why anyone is afraid of Gays getting married. Read the many responses and none of them hold water with me. If it is all about religion as Lets Think seems to think then there simply is not a valid reason. It is wrong to force your beliefs in the unknowable on everyone else. This is not Iran.

• May 19, 2008

  7:17 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  sheepherder writes:

  Let me preface this with the fact that I could care less if gays marry. Leroy, it's not BIGOTRY...it's an opinion! We all have the right to think what we want without having a label attached. And the state has every right to determine who should marry. We have a REPRESENTATIVE government (though they dont represent very well anymore). This state had a vote...the vote was against gay marriage.

• May 19, 2008

  11:56 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  Chadley25 writes:

  The thing that people just don't seem to get is that you can't give or take away rights based on popular vote. The rights of people aren't yours to withhold or grant! If that were indeed the case, black people would still be second-class citizens, women wouldn't be allowed to vote, and interracial marriage would still be very much illegal.

  The purpose of the judicial branch of government in America is to interpret law, specifically constitutional law. That's what the California Supreme Court did. These are conservative, almost exclusively Republican-appointed justices, not radical liberal activists. They were simply doing their job. Just as the Colorado and U.S. Supreme Courts overturned Colorado's Amendment 2 as unconstitutional, even though it won a popular vote in our state, that's how it will play out in California, too.

• May 19, 2008

  2:27 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  me2 writes:

  Morals come from human society, we make them up as we go, and change them over time, If not, we might still be throwing people into volcanoes to appease some God/Goddess.

  Marriage is a socially created institution that has morphed from one man, lots of women, and women in the household sexually available, (slaves, concubines, servants) to one man, one woman and the development of the nuclear family.

  Human sexuality is for procreation, but human love and sexual desire are in the brains, not the loins.

  Restricting marriage to consenting adults is all about power and control. Not one good reason for prohibiting such same sex marriages can be made, especially if the condition is to exclude religion.

  Eventually some Muslim family will want to live here, one man and three wives, and what will we tell them? Two of you ladies have to go? These legal marriages took place outside the country, according to their religion. Let`s not turn same sex marriage into dueling religions.

  We can not vote away our fellow citizens rights.

  Marriage is not about producing children, but it usually does.
  Marriage is not a Christian invention or the exclusive property of any one religion.
  Homosexual behavior among consenting adults is not immoral. It should not be subject to laws.
  Homosexual marriage does not have to please anyone but the participants.

  Your opinions, especially based on Hebrew laws, are just that: opinions.

  Imagine 40 years ago and same sex marriage even being on the ballot. What some of you see as the decline of civilization, is really the grown up version of society finally taking over.

• May 19, 2008

  2:46 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  mama_mia writes:

  Freethinker, I think you know why your "marry my Volvo" arguments get the kind of reaction they do. The key is "consenting adults". Vehicles, animals, minors, plants, and other inanimate objects are incapable of giving the informed consent necessary to enter into the legal contract of marriage. But I can't believe you don't already know that.

  Your other comments, though, make it appear that you don't fully undertand exactly what gays, lesbians and their supporters are currently fighting for.

  You said: "The gay community are trying to legally force the religious community to grant them approval." Absolutely, 100%, completely and totally WRONG! There are two types of marriage in the U.S, though they often overlap. For ease of conversation, I will call one "religious marriage" (performed in a church or by a member of the clergy) and one "legal marriage" (one for which a marriage license has been granted and one that is recognized by the government). Although many (if not most) American marriages contain both elements, many also contain just one or the other.

  People who are married by a judge or an Elvis impersonator have a legal marriage, but not a religious one. And that is all the court ruling will allow to same-sex couples. Legal recogition only, which has nothing to do with religious marriage.

  On the flip side, the Unitarian Universalist Church has been performing same-sex weddings for over 40 years. These couples have a religious marriage, but not a legal one. And while the government may not recognize the marriages, they aren't beating down their doors trying to stop the religious ceremonies, either. The churches are given their religious freedom to perform the ceremonies as they see fit, as ALL churches will continue to be allowed to do after the ruling.

  Just as Catholic churches aren't required to marry divorced individuals, and various churches are allowed to require premarital counseling or that both spouses be members of the church, churches will still be allowed to use thier own criteria with regard to same-sex marriages. No one is trying to "force the religious community to give them approval". Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, the polar opposite is what is really happening here. Your "religious community" seems to be intent on forcing all citizens to gain it's approval.

  (Note, I said "your" religious community, because plenty of religous people are pro-equality in legal marriage.)

• May 19, 2008

  2:48 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  mama_mia writes:

  Part two, to Freethinker:

  Finally, you said: "I don't need a law to let me love or to let me commit". Assuming you are married, then, I trust that you plan to refuse any social security survivors benefits you or your spouse may be entitled to one day if widowed, and that you will let your spouses parents or siblings make medical decisions if he/she is incapacitated? Gays and lesbians don't care if you approve of their marriage. They just want the legal recognition that the rest of us take for granted.

  If you don't need a law to let you love or commit, you could have fooled me. Why do you care if the law allows same-sex couples to marry? Why do you want to keep it all to yourself and those you approve of?

• May 19, 2008

  2:58 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  mama_mia writes:

  Good post, Chadley25. Yes, our forefathers structured our government with a system of checks and balances for precisely this type of occurance.

  Everything is working as it is supposed to. The courts are upholding the rights of the minority over the tyranny of the majority.

• May 20, 2008

  2:20 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  SlouchingTowardBoulder writes:

  "Marriage" is defined as between one woman and one man. End of discussion.

• May 20, 2008

  4:50 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  PNW84 writes:

  Hmm...where have all these "marriage means one man and one woman" folks been during the polygamy brouhaha in Texas? Funny how that situation doesn't seem to stir their ire nearly as much as the whole gay marriage issue.

  Some guy marrying and knocking up multiple (and sometimes underage) females? No problem. Two men wanting to say that they are married to each other? NO WAY!