The California Secretary of State is reviewing petitions that would put an initiative on the November ballot to amend the California Constitution so that the state would only recognize marriages between one man and one woman.

The secretary of state should reject these petitions. They violate the civil rights of GLBT persons, as decided by the California Supreme Court last week, to marry. And they violate the right of people in polygamist marriages to practice a way of life that has endured for centuries.

But if the petition is not rejected and the initiative qualifies for the November ballot and passes, same-sex marriage is still inevitable.

Why? Because it’s not just the definition of traditional marriage that’s changing; it’s respect for difference, and this will ultimately ensure tolerance of all forms of non-traditional union.

Federal courts in the western United States will strike down any anti-gay marriage initiative. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals would then likely follow suit, for the same reasons the California Supreme Court did. But it would do so under the Federal Constitution. And if the matter headed to the U.S. Supreme Court, there would probably be five votes holding that singling out gay and lesbian couples for discriminatory treatment violates the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Even if John McCain is elected president, the Democrats will control such a large majority in the U.S. Senate that the only plausible nominees will be those who are “moderate” Republicans. Keep in mind that the four justices who voted in last week’s California Supreme Court majority in favor of same-sex marriage consisted of three Republicans and one Democrat.

(In Lawrence v. Texas, the U.S. Supreme Court case invalidating Texas’ sodomy statute, the votes consisted of six justices, four of whom were Republican appointees. Ironically, the justice who wrote the majority opinion in Bowers v. Hardwick¸ the original case upholding sodomy statutes, was a Democrat, Byron White, appointed by John F. Kennedy.)

Further, assuming the U.S. Supreme Court rules in favor of same-sex marriage, John McCain (and Vice President Dick Cheney) oppose amending the U.S. Constitution to prohibit such.

This is doubtless driving the right wing bonkers, but given the Republican losses in Congressional races (they lost three Republican seats in the last few months), the Republican Party has much more to worry about than same-sex marriage.

In fact, if voting trends continue, Republican losses in the Senate and House could be so severe that the Democrats would have veto proof majorities in both, which would render any Republican president a doormat.

California and San Diego’s Republican leaders – the Governor, Mayor Jerry Sanders – know that same-sex marriage is inevitable. But right-wing groups, hate-radio hosts and church leaders keep harping on what an “abomination” it is, because (surprise, surprise) they see the issue as a way to make money.

Still, if the right wing wants to spend billons on anti-same-sex marriage initiatives, let them drain their coffers. Because, in the long run, same-sex marriage is inevitable.

All’s fine for non-traditional marriage in Utah

Ever since the raid on the polygamist sect in Texas, some have wondered when Utah would prosecute such sects in that state. But Utah’s Attorney General indicated last week that polygamists have nothing to worry about.

And that’s as it should be. Absent child abuse, people in polygamous marriages and/or any polyamorous relationships should be free to live as they choose.

One might have expected, given their umbrage with regard to same-sex marriage, that advocates of traditional marriage would be shocked and aggravated at Utah’s inaction. But no one’s calling, “Raid those homes; take those children. Marriage is supposed to be one man and one woman, not one man and 50 women.”

That’s good. Because tolerance is a good tradition to cultivate.