opinion web
Liberal Opinion Conservative Opinion
Steve Chapman
Steve Chapman
4 Feb 2016
Cruz, Rubio and God

If you attend a Republican presidential event on the campaign trail, you may come to wonder if you made a … Read More.

31 Jan 2016
Is Rising Violence a 'Ferguson Effect'?

Chicago, never an island of tranquility, has been roiled by a surge in serious violence. Last year, the … Read More.

28 Jan 2016
Could Ted Cruz Be Disqualified?

If you attend a presidential campaign event, you may come across someone wearing colonial garb or an Uncle … Read More.

Unwise Haste on Gay Marriage


In the old story, a preacher gives an inspiring sermon, which he concludes by asking his congregants to stand up if they want to go to heaven. Everyone rises except one nervous-looking fellow. "Brother," asks the incredulous pastor, "don't you want to ascend to paradise when you die?" Says the holdout: "When I die? Sure! I thought you were getting up a group to go right now."

That's pretty much how I feel about the California Supreme Court's decision granting the right of same-sex couples to marry. The destination is a good one. I just wish the court weren't in such a hurry to get there.

In recent years, the country has been moving at a steady pace to affirm a once-unthinkable concept — namely that as a matter of both individual rights and social good, gays should be free to make the same commitments as heterosexuals. According to a 2007 CBS News/New York Times poll, 60 percent of Americans now support allowing same-sex couples to enter into civil unions or marriage.

Radical changes don't happen overnight. But the speed of this one has been impressive. It's been only 22 years since the U.S. Supreme Court said states may criminalize homosexual conduct. It's been only 15 years since the Supreme Court of Hawaii shocked the country by ruling that gays might have a constitutional right to marry.

It's been only eight years since Vermont became the first state to admit same-sex couples to the rights and responsibilities of matrimony through civil unions. It's been only three years since California followed suit by letting gays enter into domestic partnerships.

But all of a sudden, the justices have discovered that their state constitution not only allows but requires that marriage include homosexual couples — even though in 2000, 61 percent of the state's voters rejected that option.

The majority is not always right, and in that instance, I thought the majority was wrong. But democracy doesn't say the people will always be right. It merely says they have the right to decide most matters of public policy. Here, by contrast, the California Supreme Court says the citizenry has no right to define marriage the way it has been defined by custom and law for eons.

At stake was not whether gay couples may acquire the rights and duties of marriage in a state-sanctioned framework.

As the court acknowledged, they can already do so under the domestic partnership law. But it's not enough for them to get the substance of marriage. The court said they must also get the same terminology.

It reached this conclusion through a lot of philosophizing about "the right of same-sex couples to have their official family relationship accorded the same dignity, respect and stature as that accorded to other officially recognized family relationships." But the state constitution (like the federal one) does not traffic in mushy terms like "dignity" and "stature." When a court puts such heavy reliance on amorphous concepts, it telegraphs that it will not be tied down by the actual words of the state charter.

For further proof, consider that while the California constitution forbids discrimination on the basis of "sex, race, creed, color, or national or ethnic origin," it does not forbid discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. The justices somehow found something in the document that the authors thought they omitted.

Prudence and caution, which are virtues in the executive and the legislative branch, are no sin in the judiciary, either. What those attributes dictated here is that the court give civil unions a fair interval to show their merits or flaws in practice, rather than rushing in to pronounce them inadequate.

The justices would have been wise to mark time while the people of California continued on their path toward full equality for gays. Instead, the court has practically exhorted them to stop the journey. Opponents of gay rights have mounted a drive to put a constitutional amendment on the ballot in November, which stands a good chance of passing.

The exercise may end up not only overturning the Supreme Court's presumptuous decree but hardening public attitudes against the whole idea for years to come. In time, Californians would probably be inclined to embrace gay marriage. But if you insist they go there today, don't be surprised if they refuse.

To find out more about Steve Chapman, and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate web page at



2 Comments | Post Comment
Gays have the right to marry, just not the same gender . By allowing gay marriage ,gays will have an additional right not available to heterosexuals since marrying the same gender would be too distatefull whereas gays have on many ocassions elected traditional marriage thus they have options not available to heterosexuals namely going both traditional and same gender which is certainly true of the bi-sexuals. Why we need special rights for 1% of the populations is a mystery. What incredible power.
Comment: #1
Posted by: daniel johnson
Tue May 20, 2008 2:03 PM
I beg to differ with you, Steve. It is never ever wrong to stand for justice and equality. This is an issue of justice and equality.
We have many dear gay friends who have been together in loving relationships for 25 ...35 and even 45 years. I don't think they feel anyone has been "in such a hurry" to see the day they can finally wed the person they love and cherish.
I wish educated people like yourself would speak with joy of this marvelous decision that came down from the California Supreme Court. I wish you would share stories of dear people who have waited nearly their whole lifetimes for this day ..... stories change hearts and we still have many hearts to change ... starting with Mr. Dan Johnson.
As a mom with a beloved gay son, I rejoice and give thanks for the decision and I long for the day our gay son has the same rights as our 3 straight children.
Comment: #2
Posted by: Randi Reitan
Thu May 22, 2008 10:33 PM
Already have an account? Log in.
New Account  
Your Name:
Your E-mail:
Your Password:
Confirm Your Password:

Please allow a few minutes for your comment to be posted.

Enter the numbers to the right: comments policy
Steve Chapman
Feb. `16
Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa
31 1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28 29 1 2 3 4 5
About the author About the author
Write the author Write the author
Printer friendly format Printer friendly format
Email to friend Email to friend
View by Month
Authorís Podcast
Marc Dion
Marc DionUpdated 8 Feb 2016
Mark Shields
Mark ShieldsUpdated 6 Feb 2016
diane dimond
Diane DimondUpdated 6 Feb 2016

10 Feb 2011 Why Obama Wants To Cut Corporate Taxes

2 Aug 2007 Fighting A Futile War On Prostitution

27 Oct 2013 Demolishing Guns and Common Sense