Valley Perspective : ‘Definition of Marriage’ Ballot Measure Lashes Out at Gays : The initiative would deny basic rights to same-sex couples. It opens yet another chapter in the quest for freedom by oppressed groups in America.

In slightly less than six months, California will vote on an initiative, sponsored by state Sen. William “Pete” Knight, that would confirm that California only recognizes marriage between one man and one woman. This “definition of marriage” initiative is, at best, a waste of voters’ time and attention and, at worst, a blatant attack on California’s gay community.

Currently, California (and every other state) only recognizes marriage between one man and one woman. Knight (R-Palmdale) and his extremist followers fear that Hawaii or Vermont will soon legalize gay marriage and that couples married in those states might try to live in California and expect the same--not special--rights as every other married couple in our state.

It puzzles me why these bigoted extremists spend so much time and money producing hate campaigns in the name of a supposedly loving god. These campaigns do little more than attack others and take away their right to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” Furthermore, these moralistic campaigns attempt to undermine the separation of church and state and the freedom of religion guaranteed all U.S. citizens by the Constitution.

*

Fighting this initiative is sure to be an uphill battle for the gay community, just as it has been for every other oppressed minority group in this “land of the free.” Knight’s supporters fear that recognizing gay marriage and adoption will corrupt our children and put them at risk sexually. Hard to refute are statistics indicating that more than 60% of all violent crime is committed by heterosexual men. It is clear which group presents the greater threat to children and society at large.

Furthermore, our country has a 67% divorce rate, and one out of four children younger than 18 is being raised in a divorce / custody arrangement. We have more than 800,000 children in this country being raised as wards of the state. Typically these are the neglected, abused and abandoned children of heterosexual couples. One would think that society would encourage anyone with a desire to love and provide for these unwanted and abused children. However, the bigoted extremists believe it is much more important to deny gay people the right to live their lives as they please and to deny them medical benefits, hospital visitation, custody and adoption rights and the more than 200 other rights of heterosexual marriage.

In its uphill battle, the gay community can look to history for strength and inspiration. It was only 79 years ago that women in this country were given the right to vote. Women were not denied their rights, their equality or the vote because the Constitution said they could not vote. They were denied their rights because the Constitution did not clearly say they were entitled. The white-male-dominated society was able to keep them down by manipulating and misinterpreting the Constitution to justify female exclusion and oppression. Thus an amendment had to be made to guarantee that future generations would not be able to use the Constitution as a doormat to discriminate on the basis of sex. Yet here we are again: Suzy can’t marry Sally because one of them isn’t male. Of course, nothing in the Constitution says they can’t marry; the Constitution just doesn’t clearly state that they are entitled.

*

We all know of the struggle of African Americans. It was not hedonistic pagans who kept slaves. It was Bible-believing, God-fearing, churchgoing Christians who quoted the Apostle Paul to justify their abuse of humanity and their sin of intolerance. It is safe to say that the Bible, like the U.S. Constitution, is open to misinterpretation by hatemongers looking for a godly way to justify ungodly deeds.

So here reads another chapter in the quest for freedom in America. As Californians go to the polls in March 2000, perhaps all the historically oppressed groups can remember their own struggles for acceptance and equality and look at this initiative from the perspective of those it is designed to attack.