Gay Marriage in California
Yesterday, the CA Supreme Court overturned a law attempting to define marriage as between a man and a woman. I feel dismayed by this ruling. Homosexuals around the country are unsurprisingly overjoyed by this. I do not doubt their sincerity and that most are good, decent people, but I completely disagree with the Court. Here are a few of my thoughts on the matter, explaining my perspective:
First of all, let me express my underlying beliefs on homosexuality. I believe that homosexual behavior is immoral, among many other immoral things in this world. Many homosexuals claim that their feelings are inborn and irresistible. As far as the innateness of their homosexuality, who am I to contradict what they say they feel. However, I believe that everyone is born with tendencies to commit immoral acts. Some are predisposed to indulge in pornography or to have extra-marital (due to strong yet uncontrolled sexual feelings), to drink, to steal, to lie, to lose control of their anger and abuse children, to be stupid, etc., but that does not mean that they have to be that way. They only choose to be that way, either explicitly or by default (by doing nothing).
However, despite my beliefs about what is moral, they would not provide a good reason to disagree with the Court. We live in a pluralistic society where people have equal rights to believe what they want about morality.
Now, my reasons for disagreeing with the Court's decision:
--4 judges (the decision was a 4-3 split) should not be the ones responsible to begin the process of restructuring the basic structure of society. That is not their job, especially considering that the people of California overwhelming support marriage being defined as between a man and woman. Some may say that the judges are only judging what is constitutional. The problem is that in this case it is not cut-and-dry about what the California Constitution or US Constitution would demand. The evidence is the other 3 judges who disagreed. All of them were probably strongly influenced, consciously or not, by their opinions on the matter. Those perspectives surely aided them in finding the legal bases for their decision. Again, this is too important of a decision to let it be decided by so few people.
--the effect of allowing gay marriage is the alienation of moral judgment from the issue of marriage. That is, in arguing for gay marriage, you inevitably state that it is irrelevant to marriage if some people find homosexuality morally repugnant. You also argue that two adults have equal rights to marry, regardless of how they choose to live. The problem with that is you cannot possibly ban polygamy anymore. Why should marriage be between two people? Just because you don't like it does not matter. What about an incestuous relationship between a father and his adult daughter? What if she were sterilized so that the potential of genetically deformed children is not there? Can we block that just because we don't like it? In reality, no you can't. The legal repercussions of allowing gay marriage are many.
--as a matter of practicability, there is a greater potential for abuse. Unlike the issue of race, legally speaking you are gay, because and only because you say so. There is no independent, legally acceptable, method for determining if someone really is gay. What is to stop two male heterosexual friends from getting married just to gain tax benefits or some other advantages? Nothing. My critics will say that that potential abuse exists with traditional marriage. Of course it does, but I think there are more cultural constraints on this when it is between a man and woman.
Well, that is all for today. I will probably finish off my reasons next week. I apologize for the length of this post, but I had a lot of thoughts.
My Groups
-
Latter-Day Saints Updated: 12 hours ago
Neighborhood
Explore friends, family, friends & family, or entire neighborhood.
Comments
Allow me to educate you. No rational person can criticize the Court's decision here without having at least a basic understanding of the governing California precedents. Anyone who condemns this ruling without having that understanding will be demonstrating a profound ignorance of -- and contempt for -- how the law works.
As the Court made clear, whether someone believes that "marriage" should include same-sex couples is completely irrelevant. It is equally irrelevant whether one believes that the U.S. Constitution can be read to require same-sex marriages. There is one issue, and only one issue, that matters here: are the provisions of the California State Constitution, in light of how they have been interpreted by that state's Supreme Court in prior decisions, violated by the exclusion of same-sex couples from the legal institution of "marriage"?
Equally misinformed will be anyone arguing that this is some sort of an example of judges "overriding" the democratic will of the people. The people of California, through their representatives in the State legislature, twice approved a bill to provide for the inclusion of same-sex couples in their "marriage" laws, but both times, the bill was vetoed by California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who said when he vetoed it that he believed "it is up to the state Supreme Court" to decide the issue.
Polls have found substantial support for gay marriage in California, with dramatic trends toward favoring gay marriage. While there was a referendum passed in 2000 limiting marriage only to opposite-sex couples, five years later (in 2005), California's state legislature became the first in the country to enact a same-sex marriage law without a court order compelling them to do so. Thus, even leaving aside constitutional guarantees (which, in a constitutional republic, trump public opinion), this ruling is consistent with that state's democratic processes and public opinion, not a subversion of it.
Last month, the highest court in our nation's biggest state got it right: Excluding loving committed couples from marriage harms them and their families and helps no one. Exclusion also violates the constitution's command of equality for all. American values of fairness and inclusion really do matter and apply to gay and non-gay people alike.
When the anti-gay industry attacks judges for doing their job, they are attacking the independent judiciary that keeps us all free and equal. In the words of California's chief justice, the constitution is "the ultimate expression of the people's will." Judges monitor the safeguards we the people set forth in our constitution, protecting against trespasses by erring politicians.
In fact, the decision came from a judge's judge on a court's court with a reputation for being fair and cautious, indeed conservative. Six of the seven justices are Republican appointees, including the chief justice (originally named by Ronald Reagan). They ruled only after the legislature twice passed marriage bills that the governor vetoed, saying that the judges should decide.
But now the opponents of equality trot out their customary anti-courts rhetoric. They have no good answer to the court's findings: Marriage is so important that it should not be denied to same-sex couples. In truth, there is no good reason for withholding civil marriage licenses. Domestic partnership, civil union and other alternatives don't work to protect families. The families and love of gay Americans must not be relegated to "second-class citizenship."
The real issue for fair-minded people now is not that California's court did its job, but, rather, will we act to protect all families, or acquiesce in rolling back the clock?
Anti-gay forces are pushing an amendment to cement discrimination into the state constitution — something even the nation's most popular Republican, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, opposes. If Californians do have to vote this fall, it will be an informed vote. As happened in Massachusetts, once it becomes real, people see that gay couples don't use up all the marriage licenses and that there's enough marriage to share.
Californians are fair and will not take away the marriages joyously celebrated under law, with equality for all which begins TODAY at 5:01pm! Rejoice!