California's Constitution tainted on Tuesday

There's a saying applicable to the debate over same-sex unions that I've seen on Facebook, bumper stickers, and elsewhere, and it almost perfectly summarizes my perspective: "Against gay marriage? Then don't get one and shut the ___ up."

I can respect those who oppose homosexual relationships on a personal level for religious reasons or otherwise. I can also respect those who publicly voice their opposition. In a great nation like ours, citizens are guaranteed the right to free speech and expression, even when the message is outrageous. Church pastors can preach judgment against gay people for the same reason that I can publish almost anything I want on this blog without fear of governmental reprisal.

But in a great nation like ours, citizens also have the right to privacy and dignity in their personal lives without interference. For this reason, I cannot respect the use of the vote to impose one's moral standard on others — particularly when that vote presumes to govern or restrict someone's personal, private affairs, and when those affairs have no bearing on public well-being.

Indeed, gay marriage bans have nothing to do with public safety, health, or peace. They have everything to do with the base emotion of fear. In every state whose voters have approved such a ban (and thankfully, I've never lived in one), the proponents of the ban have used advertisements that attempt to warn people of what might happen if the initiative failed. The reason for this is simple: Without falsely scaring people — and consequently influencing their votes — gay marriage ban supporters have no viable argument to support their case. In Massachusetts, whose high court legalized homosexual unions in 2004 and whose citizens have enjoyed that right ever since, the sky has not yet fallen. Anarchy has not taken root. No plagues have decimated the population.

I've heard the contention that, because issuance of marriage licenses is a public, legal matter, voters have every right to weigh in on the established criteria for obtaining one. But if that reasoning is to be accepted, then by the same measure, voters should be allowed to decide whether homosexuals are eligible to obtain driver's licenses. Or run for public offices. Or apply for professional licenses of any kind. All of the aforementioned are public, legal matters. Restricting rights or freedoms on that basis alone is a very slippery slope.

I don't believe that sexual orientation is a choice, but even if it is, such a factor should be irrelevant. In this free nation, citizens deserve the right to pursue happiness in their personal lives without meddling by others who may disapprove of the decisions they make. Let's not forget that there was a time in American history when voters would have "disapproved" of desegregating schools or granting suffrage to women or blacks. With these examples in mind, it's clear that California (and yes, Arizona and Florida) chose to join the losing side of history this past week. Let's hope that its residents realize this quickly and reverse their decision. Until then, it will be part of the growing list of states whose most sacred document is stained.