Ryan ChartrandThe California electorate has approved Proposition 8, deeming marriage to be legal only for couples of one man and one woman. However, a significant legal and procedural problem not addressed in the wording of Proposition 8 remains unresolved. Unless the secretary of state acts immediately to deal with this heretofore-unrecognized threat, the legal veracity of Proposition 8 and the Constitution itself is at risk.
Proposition 8’s passage means marriage will be legally institutionalized exclusively for couples of one man and one woman. That’s easy enough to understand. However, the proposition wording contains no requirement for verification – leaving open the possibility that inappropriately penised couples (or non-penised couples) will flout the law to assume the benefits of marriage illegally. We cannot risk the chance that a couple planning to wed in California could illegally skirt the law (pun intended) by not having at least one penis, or more than one penis, in their relationship.
After all, cross-dressing is not new. Marlene Dietrich did it in a tuxedo in Morocco in 1930. Tony Curtis and Jack Lemmon did it in 1959 in “Some Like it Hot.” Rudy Giuliani did it at political roasts in the ’90s – and he later ran as a Republican for president, for goodness sake. When even an upstanding Republican attempts to distort the reality of what lies beneath his underwear, there’s no telling what liberal people might do. Thus, there’s an obvious and immediate risk that two illegally penised or unpenised persons, bound together, could pass into wedded bliss and further threaten the sanctity of the institution of marriage – even with Proposition 8 in place.
The law must recognize the importance of proving whether a married couple truly represents one man and one woman – as opposed to a couple made up of one honest person and another who is dishonest about his/ her true genital identity. Therefore, I call on the secretary of state to immediately draft policies that regulate county clerks in their distribution of marriage licenses. Specifically, county clerks should be ordered to penis-check all applicants. It’s really not difficult to do. After all, in a not-too-dissimilar context, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart observed in 1964: “I know it when I see it.”
No Full Monty would be needed; a simple drop the pants visual check would be sufficient. Without this check, we have an enforcement gap that’s big enough to drive a bus through (have you seen Priscilla, Queen of the Desert?). This continued threat to the sanctity of marriage is unacceptable. Please rise to the occasion and join me in calling for an immediate resolution of this vexing problem with our new constitutional provision.
Doug Swanson is an associate professor of journalism and a Mustang Daily guest columnist.