The California Supreme Court today decided that a CA statute that limited "marriage" to man-woman couples violated the CA constitution. The statutory scheme under review, and passed by the CA legislature, gave both opposite-sex and same-sex couples the right to enter into an officially recognized family relationship that afforded all of the significant legal rights and obligations traditionally associated with marriage. But the union of an opposite-sex couple was officially designated a "marriage" and the union of a same-sex couple was officially designated a "domestic partnership."
I cannot begin to describe the vagaries of CA law, especially CA case law (written by their courts). I generally don't bother to read CA court opinions. Today I still take little notice of the court's reasoning, though I did skim the 121 page opinion. But I do take this opportunity to address, lightly, the issue of same-sex marriages and to seek your opinions.
Legally, it is certainly within CA's rights to allow same-sex marriages. Personally, I don't mind if they do. I have read and contemplated the objections to allowing same-sex marriages and most of the objections are rooted in a belief that homosexuality is a sin. I'm not convinced it's a sin, but that is not my point here.
So let's assume for these purposes that being gay or lesbian is NOT a sin. What are the remaining objections to allowing same-sex marriage?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
At the risk of being too agreeable, I have to agree that there is no reason to exclude same sex couples all of the civil rights enjoyed by a "traditional marriage." That, I believe, is my opinion on the question asked.
At the risk of being pernickety, the CA statute did what you say is okay, but would not allow it to be called "marriage." You say you have no objection to the rights and privileges of marriage, but I am asking about "marriage" that is in every way the same as opposite sex marriage.
If you remove the "it's a sin" argument, I do not know what other objection people can have. Any reason I can think of amounts
to "its different so it has to be bad." And that necessarily implies that homosexuality is in fact different (unnatural).
From my perspective, homosexual unions should be allowed by the state and should be allowed to be called marriage. All couples who are willing to go through the requirements to obtain a license from the state and be deemed "married" should be treated the same (taxation, right to pass property, right to determine health care decisions, right to adopt, etc.).
To me the word "marriage" is not that important (Laurie please keep reading). The important factor is the decision for two people to share their life with one another in every way possible (financial, emotional, physical) and to do so while loving one another. If two men want to make that commitment to each other, then hooray for them. If a man and a woman want to make that decision then good for them. And if in each circumstance the couple wants the world to know that they have committed themselves to each other in every way and is willing to comply with the laws of the state, then they should get to say they are married. The world could use some more of that commitment and dedication. As far as I'm concerned you can call it whatever you want -- marriage, union, coupling, joinder, or blibityblab. If it means that two people are living together and sharing their lives together in a state of love and respect with one another then that is what I want with Laurie.
People act as if the word marriage is what gives the existence of the couple its strength. People act like if the state were to impinge on the definition of "marriage" and include same-sex couples as married couples, then all couples, same-sex or different-sex, would devolve into a spiral of hate and despair such that no one would be "married" any more. That's just crazy talk.
I think I am going to weigh in on this one. It is being established by law - we are governed by laws - leading to our government. I do not think this is what our founding fathers had in mind, we have fought and sacrificed over the years to maintain our freedom. And that gives us the freedom to choose how we live. When they make the choice to live in that lifestyle they need to realize it will not be sanctioned by law. Our country was established so a man and woman could raise a family and build a future to pass on.
jlv
I appreciate the comments here, and hope for more.
I see two issues being discussed: 1) family stability and continuity; and 2) Nation of Laws - Founding Fathers.
I would be interested to learn more about the impact of same-sex marriages on family stability and the stability of future generations. The problem with what I've read so far about that, when boiled down to its essence, has nothing to do with the gender of the parents but everything to do with the love, acceptance and responsibility of the home. We all know "traditional" homes that are terrible at raising kids. We probably all know non-traditional families (homes that include grandparents or aunts or have one parent) that are good at it. I hear the alarm bells being rung, but I have seen no evidence that same-sex parents are any worse or better than traditional parents.
I agree that the U.S.A. is a nation of laws, but those laws change. As genius and democratic as the "Founding Fathers" were, they were not able to get everything right. Women could not vote in the U.S. till 1920. I don't know anyone who thinks that law should not have changed.
So anyone who believes in a nation of laws must also believe that Massachusetts has the right to change the law and allow same-sex marriages, which they have; and would agree that California can allow same-sex marriages, which they now will.
I want to address one more aspect of this CA discussion. A person I respect said this: "I am extremely disappointed, but not surprised, that the California Supreme Court has thwarted the will of the people by allowing gay marriage in their state." The basis of this argument is false. The people of California have expressed their will in several ways. The highest, most authoritative, way Californians have expressed their will is through their state constitution. People set out their most important values in their constitution, the ideals and guidelines that should change the least, the ideals and guidelines against which everything else they do should be judged.
People say in their constitution, "we believe everyone should be treated equally and everything we do in the future should be judged against this standard." That is a good idea, because in the moment, or what seems good at the time, is not always consistent with the higher ideals that the people have established for themselves.
Thanks again for the discussion. I hope at the end of the day what we really care about is that we can embrace as equals our brothers and sisters who love someone of the same gender.
If at the end of the day our goal is to embrace as equals those who make different choices as ourselves, then what does it matter if we think their choices are a sin? Can we not still embrace & love, while not agreeing with the choice? or maybe even thinking to ourselves that it doesn't seem to be what's best for them?
I agree that the law should not limit those who wish to make that choice. And, I'm not saying that I think it's a "sin", I honestly don't know. If we are going to bring Biblical foundations into the discussion, then its clear that love and acceptance outweigh whether or not it's a sin (especially because it seems the Bible itself does not make it clear if homosexual love falls into the "sin" list). It could be said that the Bible's references about the subject seem more about living a life of selfishness and excess, not necessarily about loving someone of the same sex.
But I am not a scholar, and until I KNOW, I feel most comfortable choosing acceptance, as that is one point Jesus does seem to make clear by his life.
Without using "sin" as an argument, I guess we are left with our own perceptions of what is "right" and "normal", and whether or not we are willing to accept thoughts different from our own. What basis do we have to say it is unlawful then?
Not sure I have communicated all that well. I'm distracted by the boisterously loud parties going on down the street. Graduation weekend, everyones happy, and apparently loud. Not that I mind.
Post a Comment