“Fundamental rights in California are recognized and protected by our constitution, which declares in Article I, Section 1 that “all people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights” and “among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.”

That’s Jerry Brown speaking, speaking as an informed citizen of the Republic of California, a student of American ethics, a lay-theologian, a sitting Attorney General, former Mayor of Oakland, Secretary of State of the Republic, and former Governor of  California. He speaks with both experience and authority on what can and should work in his state.  He has been clear about the truth that the citizens of California don’t get to foist their personal and cultural inclinations on their or executive or judicial branches of government.  And this has, of course, become a national issue.

One of Brown’s most recent posts reads, “Jerry Brown Here at the courthouse in the Civic Center. There's excitement in the air. Supporters and opponents have spilled out into the streets.”  It’s been a while—if there ever has been a time—since a “religious” right-wing constituency has not wanted to be in the spotlight.  But now they are, and many are not happy about that.  The problem is not that they “have spilled out into the streets,” but that their contributions and gift-giving are now out in the open. “Sunshine is the best disinfectant,” is what comes to mind here.  Some of the supporters are very proud of their commitments, of course; but not all of them are, and my guess is that in the end, the hard business consequences of their support will affect the outcome of this matter as much as anything else.  I don’t know when this will be over—when the hearing will be finished, that is—but while deliberations continue, attention is acutely focused, and we’re all learning  lot.

To begin with, now we know one good bi-product of a “market-driven” economy: gifts to political action committees from both supporters and opponents are public records, as they always have been, and businesses whose owners or managers have contributed to groups and services who have supported Proposition Eight are being boycotted.  Good—that’s what makes America great: economic pressure to change behavior.  Supporters of the proposition are free to stay away from those businesses whose leadership have opposed it.   No one seems to have noticed much of that.

Second: Social, political, and cultural historians are bringing to light what the true history of marriage is, which has not been a ”one-man/one-woman sacred institution that has been in place for the last 5,000 years,” as one vocal proponent has often said.  Since Old Testament times, marriage has been a political and financial arrangement between two families; attempts to run an end-run around that occasionally ended in death--maybe, by today’s standards, often (the Biblical Cozbi, among others).  And don’t forget the prevalence of polygamy (Solomon, for starters), nation-saving acts of sexual exercise and prowess (Esther), and half a dozen other reminders that marriage back then—and, to  certain degree now—was all about finding power, appropriating power, and maintaining power.  In the Western World, marriages were held outside churches in recognition of their secular, political nature for centuries.  And if you must bring up Adam and Eve (“not Adam and Steve,” as that pubescent attempt at cleverness goes),  let’s stop and think about where the next generation of children came from: if you take that story literally, you’re stuck with serious incest—not cousins, but the real, horrific thing.  So maybe a few people have been driven back to scripture and history books (significantly different documents).

Third: Americans may have had to stop and recognize that that line of thinking does not address the truth that our nation is comprised of peoples who are not necessarily culturally or historically invested in Christian social traditions, to begin with.  We are a country of many peoples, not all of whom buy into what is essentially a post-industrial, somewhat Victorian notion of family.

Fourth:  We have had to look closely at the sociology of family, and many Americans have had to reconsider the value of “the nuclear family,” which is also a post-industrial, socially migratory, disenfranchising operation, unlike the traditional, historical expanded and extended family.  

Fifth: Because so much of this  Prop 8 argument takes us back to the “purpose” of marriage, which, admittedly, has had  lot to do with lineage and inheritance, we have also been obliged to consider the place of children in a family and the “right” to bear children, the “right” not to bear children, the curious question of what  a “father” is (as opposed to let’s say a simple sperm-donor), the value of adoption, and the meaning of parenting.  

This all leads to the question of who has the “right” to love or not love someone else and what “rights” she or he has to implement that.    Which brings us back to the California Attorney General’s opening remarks—the rights of all Americans to  enjoy and defend life and liberty, “acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.”

So here’s  suggestion: render all unions between domestic partners—all of them—to be civil unions that provide all rights and privileges that are equal in all cases, same-sex, not-same-sex, but adults of majority.  In order to receive those benefits,  couple must be legally joined by the State. If “marriage” means something sacred to religionists of any sort, then let them determine what is “sacred” and perform and pronounce marriages—in churches, synagogues, temples, ashrams, holy springs, sacred mountains, or wherever an ordained, licensed official proclaims a marriage a marriage; many believing Christians, Jews, Buddhists and officials of other religions can and happily do that.   

The State should not interfere with the practice of religion; but organized religion or religionists of any kind, should not affect or effect the determinations of the State.   From now on: civil unions for everyone, no State-licensed marriages, at all, although those already on the books can be grandfathered in.  Let the churches have their way, but please make them get out of ours.