California Court Will Decide If Same-Sex Marriage Ban is Unconstitutional
The Right to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Marriage?
In 2008 the citizens of the State of California passed Proposition 8 which made same-sex marriage illegal in California. The majority of the state spoke. They did not want the definition of marriage changed.
The majority of Americans favor the traditional view of marriage (between one man and one woman). In fact, same-sex marriage has never become the law of the land by the majority of the people voting on it, but has only been declared legal when judges have imposed their will on the people. At least thirty States have put same-sex marriage to a vote and all of them voted not to allow it. Case closed. You would think.
Now, a few same-sex couples have hired well known attorneys and sued the State of California, claiming that Proposition 8 violates their civil rights.
If this court or the supreme court agrees, the "right" to marry a same-sex partner would be ranked right up there with the right to vote and freedom of speech.
Due to the high stakes, chief judge Alex Kozinski, has allowed the case, Perry v. Schwarzenegger, to be recorded so that it can be viewed by the country. The proceedings are expected to be posted on YouTube.
The interesting thing about this lawsuit is the perception that it is only about gay marriage. It goes so much deeper than that. It is about living in a country where the majority rules and the government is run "by the people; for the people."
I agree there are times when the minority's interests need to be protected. But having your marriage recognized by the government does not seem to be a right that should be forced upon a government. I guess in my mind my husband is my husband to me if Uncle Sam calls him that or not. It seems that fundamental freedoms prevent people from being denied something important. Like the right to have a vote and to own things and to be protected by and from our government.
If the government is being unfair to decide what conditions persons have to meet to be allowed the privilage of marrying, then a 20 year old man's right to buy alcohol should be protected by the constitution because he is being denied a privilage that other adult citizens enjoy based solely on his age.
Back to the issue of this court case- if the court deems that banning same-sex marriage is unconstitutional, then it would change my Nation forever, not because same-sex couples can marry but, because the minority can control the government. Why should I even bother to vote if the majority vote is not the deciding factor?
******* After reading the comments posted within the first few hours of this article's life, I realized that my main point must not have been clear because many people have made comments about the very thing I said I believed this issue was NOT about: same-sex marriage. It is about the definition of civil rights.
Slavery involved freedom -an inalienable right. Suffrage involved equality- an inalienable right. Interracial marriages had less to do with marriage and more to do with one mans race being equal to another.
Here is the point- Marriage is NOT a civil right. Civil rights are inalienable. They can not be given to people by a government, nor rightfully taken away.Marriage is an institution. Like political offices, clubs and fitness centers. A person applies for membership in this institution in America and if approved, they enjoy the perks of membership. The term for this is having your marriage "recognized".
The religious aspect of marriage unions is not the issue at hand. That has become confused. This is about the definition of the government institution of marriage by which a person is given a different tax status among other things.
Marriage as a union or bond is subject to the religious beliefs of the persons involved. The government does not prohibit such ceremonies except for involvement of the age of those consumating their unions.
******
Sources:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100107/ap_on_re_us/us_gay_marriage_trial
www.christianpost.com/article/20100107/prop-8-trial-youtube/
Published by Kristen Anne Harvey
Kristen is a freelance writer and research consultant. She makes her home in Southeast Nebraska. The Owner of The Secret Place Writing Services for almost 10 years, Kristen can be found at her website www.re... View profile
State of California Approves Tax Increase to Overcome Budget DeficitIn a move that will be very unpopular with California residents, California will be raising taxes.- Ban of Divorce in State of CaliforniaI talk about the 2010 California Marriage Protection Act and how it is more of a mockery of the acceptance of Proposition 8 than a serious Act.
California Same Sex Ruling - Death Toll of Marriage?Controversy is stirred by California Supreme Court decision to allow same sex marriage. Is there a way marriage can be supported anyway?- Toyota Sends Plug-in Hybrids to University of California at Berkeley, Irvine for F...Toyota has sent two plug-in electric hybrid vehicles to two University of California campuses to determine if plug-ins will work in the US car market. Plug-in depends on conventional electrical sources to charge thei...
- The Top Unique Culinary Expereinces of CaliforniaIf you're looking for a unique dining experience in the state of California, here is a guide to the top unique restaurants to choose from throughout the state.
- Same Sex Marriage, the New Social Trend
- A Look at California's Proposition 8: The 'Eliminates Right of Same Sex Couples to...
- Code Red:All Stars Please Respond Healthcare Down at the Junction of Canada and Me...
- Proposition 8, Same-Sex Marriage Ban, Upheld by Court 6-1
- Homeschool Laws in the State of California
- Proposed State of California Budget to Tax Your Taxes and Raise Sales Tax, Vehicle...
- The Grapes of Wrath: Let the State of California Fail
- Proposition 8 was passed in 2008 by the majority of California voters
- California's Governor has refused to take a side
- Alliance Legal Defense has interviened on the case
15 Comments
Post a Comment...(continuted) of "right" and "wrong". Yes, we've horribly screwed up many times in our history. But that is the price of being human. Our laws can and do change. This is the beauty of a democratic republic.
I know this article is a few months old now, but I feel compelled to respond to the criticisms below. The point of this article is not whether same-sex marriage is right or wrong, it's about whether the institution of marriage itself should be recognized, and supported, by our government. Yes, I am married, adn therefore the US government offers special benefits to me and my wife. According to principle, this is a form of prejudice. I agree with the author in that our governemnt shouldn't be giving special perks to people just because they are married. The perks of marriage are built into the institution itself. On a side note, I wish also to point out that our government isn't a democracy, but a republic with democratic forms of representation. A demoocracy is, literally, rule of the majority. A republic is rule by law. Sometimes the majority is right, sometimes the minority is right. Having a republic helps structure laws in a way that takes into consideration the concepts
If marriage were simply about religon..then atheists could not marry..but we know that they can. All that is required to marry is for 1 partner to be a man and one to be a woman..they don't have to love each other or even know each other..just be male and female and sign on the dotted line..then bam..you now enjoy 1,100 laws, protections and rights that the U.S. government offers to "married" people. Once the govt got inolved in giving married people special rights, it became a civil rights issue. When you tell one set of people that they are lesser than and can not enjoy the same rights as the other set of folks, that is discrimination..it's very sad that this is still even an issue in America.
Congratulations on being featured (at the top, no less) in the news content category. Way to go, teammate!
Congrats on being featured in the news section! Interesting reading.
You have the right to your decision and your vote. California citizens' vote and rights for it to be upheld should stand too.
Thank you for your submission. Your article has been featured on AC's news category.
Your thinking is flawed. The way you describe marriage as some sort of club. Gays are discriminated against you moron. Why should the person of my choosing not be able to visit me in the hospital, inherit my benefits and property, or make decisions for me if I were to become incapacitated. That IS discrimination. And I am so sorry that you think you should get to vote on my personal issues. The courts are there to protect the minority from the majority. As we all know the majority is not always correct, and imagine what this country would be like if the courts had not stepped in on occasion. It is easy for you to sit back and pass your judgement, but I am not asking for your approval nor anyone else's. But what harm would it cause you if I were allowed to marry my partner? The arrogance of you some people is mind boggling. I don't think bigots should be allowed to be married, but thats my opinion. I don't think there should be a law against it.
I think your article was very intesting. thanks.
Against the wishes of the majority? If it was always up to the majority, I think the author of this article would still be a second class citizen who is not allowed to own property or vote. Part of what makes the US so amazing is that our Constitution offers equal protections and rights for EVERY citizen, and these inalienable rights supercedes the so-called majority rule. The author and her kind were wrong in the 1960s regarding interracial marriages, and they continue to be wrong today regarding same-sex marriages.