To answer Nicole's question , yes, I support marriage equality and the California Supreme Court's May 15 decision on the issue. Jumping to the chase, I'm very supportive because they directly led to my ability on June 18 to create a union recognized by the state of California with the man I want to spend the rest of my life with.
My opinion on the issue comes after many years of personal observation and reflection, and was not a direct or easy path. After too many years of dealing professionally with the failures of marriage, first in my security work for the State Department and later working on family law issues as an attorney, I honestly wondered why anyone would want to participate in the archaic institution.
Starting in law school though, for the first time I thought about the philosophy and history of marriage. I would still question marriage in the Anglo tradition: the concepts of a wife giving a unilateral promise of obedience to her husband, and fathers giving their daughters away as though they were property is insulting and degrading. I did come to appreciate the history and philosophical approach behind community property though, an approach to marriage dating back to ancient Spanish law.
The philosophy is easily shown by looking at the 15th century marriage of King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella, a union the resulted in the unification of Spain as one county under their grandson: marriage is a union of two equals who have decided to share everything forever. In my mind this was the correct approach to marriage and how I wanted to spend my life - part of a union based on mutual respect and equal standing.
Alma Sove from San Diego
June 19, 2008 at 04:33 PM
Hello Newlywed!
Many happy returns in your union, Chuck.
Thank you for doing the hard work of analyzing the history of marriage, both in terms of its traditional origins and as it makes its winding path through marriage equality in CA.
I really have to thank you profusely for this segment of your post:
"The argument that eight years ago the people passed a law and that vote should be forever inviolate even if the law conflicts with the state constitution is patently absurd."
THANK YOU for spelling this out. It's been an eye-opener (to say the least) to see this sentiment of injustice being passionately expressed. It's incredible hearing patently (arrogantly, as you aptly put it) theological arguments as the rationale for interpreting state constitutions. I wonder how these religiously motivated interpretations would change if the dominant religion in CA were, oh, I don't know, Islam or some other religion that is definitely not Christianity?
What people choose to practice in their homes should be protected. Those people forcing their religious practices on all members of society is (in my opinion) un-American in the traditions of this country's founders.
Chris
June 19, 2008 at 07:17 PM
Congrats Chuck, your puppy is now officially part of a traditional family.
Looking forward legally, I'd like to hear your and Alma's opinions on where things will go from here. I have read some interesting articles suggesting that the issue might reach Federal Court along Interstate Commerce lines. States that refuse to acknowledge California marriages will be in violation of the Interstate Commerce Clause - thus Federal law might be settled without the Fed Courts considering the question of how one defines marriage. Does this line of reasoning hold up?
Candace Suerstedt
June 19, 2008 at 10:46 PM
Well Chuck,
I know this is a political blog and your's just taught me a great deal of history but forgive me...I am a romantic and I seem to be in a
"quoting" mood today.
To you and yours on the event of your wedding:
Love has no other desire but to fulfill itself.
But if you love and must needs have desires, let these be your desires:
To melt and be like a running brook that sings its melody to the night.
To know the pain of too much tenderness.
To be wounded by your own understanding of love;
And to bleed willingly and joyfully.
To wake at dawn with a winged heart and give thanks for another day of loving;
To rest at the noon hour and meditate love's ecstasy;
To return home at eventide with gratitude;
And then to sleep with a prayer for the beloved in your heart and a song of praise on your lips.
"On Love" by Khalil Gibran in The Prophet
OK now to the real question of the day. Where are you all registered...for gifts I mean? As a girl raised by a long line of southern belles, I needed to ask. In the current economic climate I may not be able to spring for a Sterling Silver place setting but
maybe a kitchen utensil is in order. A garlic press perhaps?
Trina Boice from Carlsbad
June 20, 2008 at 04:29 PM
Congratulations Chuck. Yes, I mean it. This has been an exciting week for both of you and I wish you health and happiness. Really. I posted a note for you on Facebook, but should have congratulated you here publicly first to let others know I have no ill will towards you or anyone in the gay community. I consider us friends.
My piece was never meant to be hurtful. I'm being paid to offer comments that reflect an opposing view. I have dear friends who are gay and lesbian so I find myself in an awkward position. It's kind of a hate the sin but love the sinner kind of position.
My religion teaches me to show love and kindness to everyone, but also to stand for what what I feel is right. In this liberal corner of cyberspace it's difficult to always be the only one who disagrees. It's exhausting really. I'm not the kind of person who loves to stir up a hornet's nest or gets a kick out of contraversy and contention.
I've been teaching at a private high school in Encinitas where I am one of only 2 or 3 conservatives. One of the teachers said to me the other day "Wow. I've never actually met a real Republican before." He was fascinated that we actually exist. We had fun kicking around ideas and there was no hostility. We knew we weren't going to "convert" one another, but the dialogue was still worthwhile. There is no learning or growth when we surround ourselves with people who are exactly like us. There is much we can learn from each other.
Sam Tibbs from Orange County, California
June 25, 2008 at 03:40 AM
Sorry, Tina, but you can dress it up any way you want, but if you suggest that you deserve a right that Chuck doesn't, that is hateful and wrong. The law exists for everyone - not just you and yours.
I am a conservative, and I've voted Republican for the past 52 years (with two minor exceptions), but I'm a conservative for rational, logical reasons - not due to irrational religious dogma - and I believe in the right of all loving, consenting, rational adults to be in a loving union with someone who cares about them.
That's just what's right and kind and there's no rational reason against it.
Marc from UT
July 01, 2008 at 07:07 PM
Charles,
You have a messed up view of life. Here are some coments:
1) " the failures of marriage" - Not true. Yes we have many divorces in the last generation, but what I see are the failures of selfish married people... because when you treat your husband / wife better than he / she deserves, most of the time you get a happy marriage. That is a fact.
2) "the concepts of a wife giving a unilateral promise of obedience to her husband" - it makes me wonder how many heterosexual marriages you know well... (heterosexual) marriage is not only a partnership, but too many wives use the pants in the house.
In my planet, girls date, choose a husband for themselves. If this girls chose one that downgrades them, iuts their choice. Do you live in this world?
3) "fathers giving their daughters away as though they were property is insulting and degrading" - again, I wonder what you are talking about. My father-in-law cried like a baby when I married his daughter, and the same will probably happen to me, and the reason for that is the enormous value my daughter has to me. She is a light in our family and we surelly hope to be always nearby her , so that we can have plenty contact with her and our future son-in-law.
Charles, your comments are so out of focus we can not understand each other. Come back to earth for a visit and we will discuss this subject again after that.
Marc
