Though the U.S. Supreme Court was split in its decision finding that state laws forbidding same-sex marriage do not pass constitutional muster, the court’s majority did not stutter when ruling that states must allow the practice. In the eyes of the law, then, same-sex marriage is now legal in all 50 states, period. Given that, it is somewhat mystifying, altogether disappointing and in no way surprising that six days after the court’s decision in Obergefell vs. Hodges, two proposed ballot initiatives aiming to limit same-sex marriage were launched in Colorado. The state is reviewing the measures now and should dismiss them expeditiously.
Littleton residents D’Arcy and Gene Straub proposed two ballot measures in response to the Supreme Court’s ruling last month. One would redefine same-sex marriage so that it would be classified as a civil union, not a marriage. The second would allow businesses whose owners are offended by same-sex marriages to use contractors to perform services for gay weddings. Both aim to make strong statements about same-sex marriage. Both are patently offensive and reveal a bigotry for gay couples that does not belong in Colorado law.
The Straubs are scheduled to meet with the state’s Legislative Council staff on July 16 to learn whether the proposed measures can advance to the signature-gathering stage, during which time supporters would have to gather nearly 99,000 signatures from registered voters in order for the measures to appear on the 2016 ballot. The state should save the Straubs the trouble.
Given the Supreme Court’s ruling that requires states to allow gay couples to marry, and to recognize marriages conducted in other states, an attempt at redefining same-sex marriage as a civil union is akin to putting toothpaste back in the tube. The conversation about gay marriage and its relationship to the law, robust and at times painful as it was, is concluded.
That is not the case among religious groups, some of which have faith-based positions against same-sex marriage that – distasteful and discriminatory as the views may be – these groups are within their rights to possess. Colorado’s Catholic bishops issued a statement after the Obergefell decision reiterating their view of what constitutes marriage, with a somewhat biblical refresher course in biology: “Men and women were designed by God in complementary relation to one another, and only a man and a woman can form a conjugal union that brings forth children.” True enough, but under the law as pertains to marriage, that is neither here nor there.
Nor are the personal views of a business owner with respect to their clients’ life choices. The Straubs’ contention that businesses opposed to gay marriage should be able to contract out services for same-sex clients is both reprehensible and regressive. Business owners who have tried this discriminatory tact in the past have failed, as did two proposed measures in the Legislature’s 2015 session. Though the Supreme Court decision did not extend to wedding services, the Equal Protection clause that requires states to treat all its citizens equally under the law hints that such discrimination is at least inappropriate. It is certainly offensive.
The proposed ballot initiatives responding to the Supreme Court’s sanctioning of same-sex marriage are likely go nowhere, which is exactly where they belong.
