Proposition 8 Hearing: Marriage Just For The Religious?
posted by: Steve Williams 293 days ago
Thursday saw oral arguments start in the case to dismiss Proposition 8, as the California Supreme Court investigated the validity of the measure, passed by ballot vote in November 2008, that redefined gay people out of a right to marry under California law. The outcome is far from certain, but indications show that the Supreme Court will be forced into upholding Proposition 8 as the will of the majority.
However, even the most conservative member of the court, Justice Marvin Baxter, contested that those marriages that were already carried out before the November cut-off were done so following a ruling by "the highest court of the state" in reference to the Supreme Court ruling of last year that came out in favor of same-sex marriages by a vote of 4-3. Even Pepperdine Law School Dean Kenneth Starr, Defendant for Proposition 8, failed to convince the Court that Proposition 8's wording applied retroactively, in spite of showing bravado and ease in the court room throughout the rest of the arguments.
But it seemed Starr was successful in other areas, especially when it came to the argument on civil rights.
"Rights are ultimately defined by the people," Kenneth Starr argued, and then went on to contest that, far from being exclusively a "one-way street", there was no reason why rights could not be changed, reconstructed or even removed under the Constitution, if the democratic process of the people deemed them worthy of such a change.
All seven Justices remained skeptical as to whether Proposition 8 overstepped its power as an amendment, which had been one of the main arguments for those against Proposition 8. Even advocates of Proposition 8's dismissal were calling the move a long-shot, and one that seemed to flounder at the gate when the Justices pointed out that because the Constitution had been amended in the past over 500 times through a ballot measure, Proposition 8 could be treated no differently, although there was some weight given to the argument that the nature of Proposition 8 differed because it removed a protected right from a minority group. Still, the Court was unsure.
As to the argument of whether Proposition 8 violated the rights of LGBT people, the Court echoed thoughts that had long been debated by the general public when Justice Carlos Moreno asked, "How do we know what an inalienable right is? Do we just know it when we see it?" The same question was also asked in another context- didn't the people who voted have an inalienable right to have their voices heard and upheld too?
Issues of race were brought into the debate when the Court asked if the fight for gay marriage in California was now just a battle of semantics, given that domestic partnerships were allowed and that Proposition 8 had only stopped same-sex "marriage" by word alone. Shannon Minter of the National Centre of Lesbian Rights and speaker for the plaintiffs against Proposition 8, proposed that the word marriage and its rights under the Constitution were "organically" fused.
"If you remove one of the core elements, you end up with a different institution."
The plaintiffs then proceeded to draw on the topic of interracial marriage, and why, when the Court allowed marriages between persons of differing races, it didn't grant them legal protections but then label their unions "trans-racial partnerships". Minter then postulated that by denying the concept of marriage to LGBT people, you devalued their partnerships and rendered them second class citizens which went against last year's court ruling giving sexual orientation the same weight as rights on the basis of race and gender. Starr refuted this claim.
In related news, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown hosted an LGBT dinner on the eve of the hearing at his residence in Downing Street, and called Proposition 8 "unacceptable".
Perhaps, of all the subjects raised by Thursday's hearing, questions about the nature of marriage stand chief amongst them. California has defined marriage as being between a man and a woman. That is the way it will be, at least for the foreseeable future, should Proposition 8 stand. Marriage between a man and a woman. This is as the Bible says, correct? Well, not exactly.
The Bible's definition of marriage has a predication that those entering into the institution of marriage be religious.
Yet many secular couples are "married" everyday. If the semantics aren't important, are we going to remove their right to say that they are married? Surely the Californian Supreme Court will have to broach this subject at some point? So, what is your opinion?
However, even the most conservative member of the court, Justice Marvin Baxter, contested that those marriages that were already carried out before the November cut-off were done so following a ruling by "the highest court of the state" in reference to the Supreme Court ruling of last year that came out in favor of same-sex marriages by a vote of 4-3. Even Pepperdine Law School Dean Kenneth Starr, Defendant for Proposition 8, failed to convince the Court that Proposition 8's wording applied retroactively, in spite of showing bravado and ease in the court room throughout the rest of the arguments.
But it seemed Starr was successful in other areas, especially when it came to the argument on civil rights.
"Rights are ultimately defined by the people," Kenneth Starr argued, and then went on to contest that, far from being exclusively a "one-way street", there was no reason why rights could not be changed, reconstructed or even removed under the Constitution, if the democratic process of the people deemed them worthy of such a change.
All seven Justices remained skeptical as to whether Proposition 8 overstepped its power as an amendment, which had been one of the main arguments for those against Proposition 8. Even advocates of Proposition 8's dismissal were calling the move a long-shot, and one that seemed to flounder at the gate when the Justices pointed out that because the Constitution had been amended in the past over 500 times through a ballot measure, Proposition 8 could be treated no differently, although there was some weight given to the argument that the nature of Proposition 8 differed because it removed a protected right from a minority group. Still, the Court was unsure.
As to the argument of whether Proposition 8 violated the rights of LGBT people, the Court echoed thoughts that had long been debated by the general public when Justice Carlos Moreno asked, "How do we know what an inalienable right is? Do we just know it when we see it?" The same question was also asked in another context- didn't the people who voted have an inalienable right to have their voices heard and upheld too?
Issues of race were brought into the debate when the Court asked if the fight for gay marriage in California was now just a battle of semantics, given that domestic partnerships were allowed and that Proposition 8 had only stopped same-sex "marriage" by word alone. Shannon Minter of the National Centre of Lesbian Rights and speaker for the plaintiffs against Proposition 8, proposed that the word marriage and its rights under the Constitution were "organically" fused.
"If you remove one of the core elements, you end up with a different institution."
The plaintiffs then proceeded to draw on the topic of interracial marriage, and why, when the Court allowed marriages between persons of differing races, it didn't grant them legal protections but then label their unions "trans-racial partnerships". Minter then postulated that by denying the concept of marriage to LGBT people, you devalued their partnerships and rendered them second class citizens which went against last year's court ruling giving sexual orientation the same weight as rights on the basis of race and gender. Starr refuted this claim.
In related news, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown hosted an LGBT dinner on the eve of the hearing at his residence in Downing Street, and called Proposition 8 "unacceptable".
Perhaps, of all the subjects raised by Thursday's hearing, questions about the nature of marriage stand chief amongst them. California has defined marriage as being between a man and a woman. That is the way it will be, at least for the foreseeable future, should Proposition 8 stand. Marriage between a man and a woman. This is as the Bible says, correct? Well, not exactly.
The Bible's definition of marriage has a predication that those entering into the institution of marriage be religious.
Yet many secular couples are "married" everyday. If the semantics aren't important, are we going to remove their right to say that they are married? Surely the Californian Supreme Court will have to broach this subject at some point? So, what is your opinion?
Read more: marriage, civil rights, proposition 8, gay rights, california supreme court
comments
That I find people of the same gender having sex repugnant and laughable has nothing to do with my religious beliefs - but is purely a personal issue. I find the very idea of such acts preposterous. I don't hate gays as people, however, it is my right to feel the way I do, just as it is yours to feel the way you do. I believe in "hate the sin, not the sinner" and if that makes me homophobic, so be it.
send green star
why is this inappropriate?
chris richardson: you should be ashamed of yourself. do some homework, and find out how many gay couples are fostering or have adopted the toughest of the tough: crack babies, aids babies, sick babies and emotionally damaged children of all ages. all those less than perfect children that have been rejected by straight people. your lack of accurate information and empty bigotry do nothing but embarrass you and strengthen the very sound arguments of all these loving gay couples, loving each other and their children.
send green star
why is this inappropriate?
I am married, and I am NOT christian or catholic. I did not speak my vows to my husband in a church, or include any reference to a religion in the ceremony I wrote...according to what they are giving as the reason for not allowing gay men and women to marry, I am not married either... I am not religious, in their sense. I am a mixture of pagan and Buddhist. I always thought love was the reason for marriage, but I guess I was wrong. Either way, I support marriage between people who are in love, no matter their race or sexual orientation! Gay people are not laughable or repugnant, you may want to rethink your hate!
send green star
why is this inappropriate?
I find it funny how most of the arguments against gay rights are the same as they were for black people. And the majority of the people against the rights are yet again the christian faith. The constitution in itself says freedom of religion, that also means freedom FROM religion. If you are going to say that it is not natural in 'gods' eyes, then atheists, Buddhists, Muslim, etc. should not be allowed to get married because they do not believe in your 'god'? This comes down to you pushing your religion on others. It is not your responsibility as a US citizen to push religion on others, you can be a hypocrite and condemn people (Your 'gods' job, which means you are a sinner if you do), but to uphold the rights of all citizens. All groups of people used to have rights refused, why are you working against progression and equality? And the bible does not say that he was going to hell because he was gay, but for how he treated the people from the desert. (He was prejudice and acted out on those feelings, just as you are doing to a group of people you do not know/understand). Once we get our rights, whose are you going to go after next?
send green star
why is this inappropriate?
Marriage is not just a religious thing but a moral one. Gay marriage is not moral nor natural in any way. The very idea of two people of the same gender having sex is repugnant and in a way just plain laughable
send green star
why is this inappropriate?
As long as certain rights are not reserved for the married, so what. But the constitution allows for a right to free association, including the association called marriage which has historically included non-religious persons.
send green star
why is this inappropriate?
"These people are demanding rights, not accepting responsibility."
Are You saying that Gay people are just using the system?
send green star
why is this inappropriate?
Its Sickening...People in the USA of the right to the "american Dream" It may just be a bit of a different Dream to some.
My Sister was planning on going to Cali. to get married, and Now she cant ITS PURE CRAP.
Marriage should be about love.
send green star
why is this inappropriate?
"Society needs to separate the church from state", It certainly does, paricularly as every organized religion has been disproven beyond a doubt. Marriage should be about the legal RESPONSIBILITIES of procreation, not about same sex partners attempting to access social benefits. The 'same sex marriage' issue in Canada started when a lesbian lady wanted to cash in on her partner's employee benefits, her partner being a unionized government employee in Toronto. This 'issue' is not about discrimination, it is about a cash grab by people to lazy to work for their money. You want to mutually masterbate with a member of the same sex so be it. I really don't care and don't particularly want to know about it. These people are demanding rights, not accepting responsibility.
send green star
why is this inappropriate?
Society needs to separate the church from state. Marriage is not a religious thing. Thats a big misconception. I support gay and lesbian marriages.
send green star
why is this inappropriate?
Facebook account:
Disclaimer: The views expressed above are solely those of the author and may not reflect those of Care2, Inc., its employees or advertisers.
1073672