California ban on same-sex marriage overturned

The recent California Supreme Court ruling in favor of same-sex marriage represents a serious setback for the forces of bigotry and division. Following the announcement, photos, video clips and the joyous statements of lesbians and gay men celebrating the decision filled the media here in California.

In its 4-3 ruling, the state’s highest court said that two state laws prohibiting same-sex marriage are discriminatory and thus unconstitutional. California joins Massachusetts as a state where same-sex marriage is now legal. Same-sex couples so inclined can begin marrying about mid-June.

Finally, same-sex couples in California will enjoy all the same marital rights and benefits as opposite-sex couples.

But the very powerful forces of reaction are not accepting their defeat quietly. Backed by big bucks and using deceptive pitches, their petitioners have collected approximately 1.1 million signatures among the voters in this populous state for a November ballot proposition that would amend the state constitution to prohibit same-sex marriage. And these big money, bigoted forces are also seeking a court injunction that would bar any same-sex marriages in the state until the November vote on that amendment, which they hope will halt any further efforts for equal access to marriage.

One of the two laws overturned by the court had passed, in the form of Proposition 22, with 61 percent of the vote in 2000. While there is every reason to believe that the intervening years of continuing struggle against homophobia and homohatred have educated the state’s voters about the need to stand up for equality, political activists are not taking anything for granted. The necessity for continuing struggle and educational work is made clear by the still prevalent level of bigotry in many communities, the media, the educational system and elsewhere. A most dramatic and tragic manifestation this past February was the Oxnard, Calif., homophobic murder of openly gay 15-year-old Lawrence King. Murderous violence against lesbians, gay men, bisexual and transgender people has a horribly persistent history in the U.S.

While any decent person would condemn acts of violence based on a person’s sexuality or gender identity, the people who oppose same-sex marriage have what they consider a rational argument.

Judge Marvin Baxter, one of the three dissenting justices in the California Supreme Court case, argued, “Nothing in our Constitution, express or implicit, compels the majority’s startling conclusion that the age-old understanding of marriage—an understanding recently confirmed by an initiative law—is no longer valid.”

In a less abstruse way of putting it, the state attorney general’s office, which appeared in court to defend the ban, said that the judges should abide by the historic understanding of marriage as being between a man and a woman.

First let’s focus on their use of the words “age-old” and “historic.” In her book “Marriage, a History,” Stephanie Coontz traces the origin of the now-prevalent idea of love-based heterosexual marriage as a development mainly of some Western cultures in the late eighteenth century. Her cross-cultural and historical research uncovered a dazzling variety of earlier marriage arrangements, most based on economic and political considerations rather than romantic love.

Although Coontz’s exposition exhibits little understanding of, or interest in, class differences, her findings on the determinants of marriage historically square with Dorothy Ballan’s characterization of the family in her insightful work “Feminism and Marxism” as, in its essence, the basic economic unit of class society. Drawing on Frederick Engels’ work, “Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State,” Ballan explained how human families have changed as the economic organization of society has changed.

So when the opponents of same-sex marriage appeal to the sanctity of “traditional marriage,” they should be questioned about which tradition and what stage of human social development they’re appealing to. And why!

But as equally important to the defense of same-sex marriage as the lack of a single historical form for marriage is the issue of whether human pair bonding, whether described as marriage or otherwise, has historically been restricted to heterosexuals. Homosexually oriented people have existed in every human society and their pairings have been secret or open or even officially sanctioned based mainly on prevailing social attitudes, attitudes which have reflected more and more hostility toward the rights of women and of homosexuals as class society has evolved.

One recent print attack on same-sex marriage heralded “the 5,000-year tradition” of heterosexual marriage. Interestingly, five millennia ago was about when the first class-based, slave-based human societies began to consolidate. It’s also when the historic oppression of women materialized and when sexual and gender variation began to be proscribed. Engels pointed out that these developments coincided with the introduction of private property, a concept totally foreign to the earlier, communal societies. The preceding, communal form of human social life had no use for methods of inducing social inequality and intra-class divisions. These societies were characterized by sharing and valued all members of the group for their contributions to the survival and well-being of the group.

Today we continue to live in societies divided by class and riddled by race, sex, gender and other prejudices. The present day capitalist rulers constitute a smaller and smaller numerical proportion of society while the number of working and oppressed people grows and grows. The rich continue to rule only by sowing divisions among the rest of us. The absurd controversy over the right to same-sex marriage is just one example.

We need to deprive them of the weapons they use to divide us. We need to continue and deepen the fight for equal rights for all. Defending our diversity will bring our class the unity we need for victory in the struggle for global justice and peace. For socialism!

The writer is the author of the groundbreaking book, “The Roots of Lesbian and Gay Oppression,” originally entitled “The Gay Question: A Marxist Appraisal,” released in 1976.