California Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Marriage Equality
Friday May 16, 2008
More About: Arguments for Same-Sex Marriage | The Gay Rights Movement
Yesterday, the California Supreme Court legalized same-sex marriage. In 30 days, the ruling will take effect. There is already a right-wing ballot initiative proposal underway to revise California's state constitution to ban same-sex marriage, but there are three factors working against it:
Simply put: California now recognizes same-sex marriage.
What does this mean for the country as a whole? Well, let's look at the numbers:
I'll have more to say about the reasoning behind the ruling itself over the weekend. For now, my thoughts are with the millions of lesbian and gay couples whose lives will be improved, directly or indirectly, by this ruling. Yesterday, California became a much more civilized state and the United States became a slightly more civilized nation. When America begins its Pride Month celebrations in two weeks, we'll all have a little more to be proud of.
See also:
|
- Proponents have not yet gathered the necessary signatures.
- Public opinion in California is strongly against a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage.
- Even California governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, a Republican, has stated that he supports the court's ruling and opposes the ballot initiative.
Simply put: California now recognizes same-sex marriage.
What does this mean for the country as a whole? Well, let's look at the numbers:
- An estimated 43 million Americans, or 14.3% of the U.S. population, now live in states that do not prohibit same-sex couples from getting married. (California, Massachusetts)
- An estimated 27.5 million Americans, or 9% of the U.S. population, now live in states or districts that formally recognize domestic partnerships or civil unions, but not same-sex marriage. (Connecticut, District of Columbia, Hawaii, Maine, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Oregon, Vermont, Washington)
- An estimated 234 million Americans, or 76.7% of the U.S. population, now live in states or territories that do not formally recognize same-sex marriage, domestic partnerships, or civil unions on a statewide or territory-wide level.
- The federal government does not award any marriage benefits to same-sex couples, except for certain pension benefits (see "New Pension Bill Provides Benefits for Same-Sex Couples").
I'll have more to say about the reasoning behind the ruling itself over the weekend. For now, my thoughts are with the millions of lesbian and gay couples whose lives will be improved, directly or indirectly, by this ruling. Yesterday, California became a much more civilized state and the United States became a slightly more civilized nation. When America begins its Pride Month celebrations in two weeks, we'll all have a little more to be proud of.
See also:
Comments
This decision was made by a minority of 4 people, who overruled the majority vote, 8 to 10 years ago, by the citizens of Califonia. Same sex marriage is not a civil right, marriage was created for the union of man and a women, period. Revising the definition, does not change the fact. The article was somewhat misleading, the fact is that there will be enough signitures to get this on the ballot, so the majority of the people can vote on it again and follow the majority of the country who agree this should be a constitional amendment.
Ancient marriage was created for control. It’s evolutionary biology in the form of social doctrine. The alpha male gets the female. Sanctioned marriage let all the other males know who this female belonged to. Marriage evolved as more a form of ownership than partnership. In most cultures that predate Christianity, marriage was allowed between one man and multiple women. The alpha male gets as many females as he can afford/care for.
In the United States and most western countries, we see the marriage of more than two people as inappropriate. Why the change? There’s no evolutionary explanation. The definition of marriage has changed because society gradually began to see men and women as more equal (very gradually that is).
Same-sex marriage is a natural progression of gender equality. If men and women are the same, then why can’t men and women choose — independent of gender — whom to marry? There’s currently no evolutionary pressure on the human race to increase procreation (quite the opposite), so there’s no reason why marriage can’t be between any two people.
If the government was to get entirely out of the business of sanctioning marriage, we’d all be better off. Since that’s not going to happen anytime soon, let’s just sanction them all.
Angi, history is full of wonderful stories of courts overruling the will of the majority from 8-10 years prior when that will contradicts the constitution. And California’s ban on same-sex marriage, as I will explain over the weekend, blatantly violates California’s constitution. The four justices, three of whom are Republican appointees, had no choice.
Re the ballot initiative… Arizona’s didn’t pass, and Arizona–home of Senator McCain–is a heck of a lot more conservative than California. Proponents of traditional marriage would be better served addressing issues in their own communities–such as domestic violence and infidelity–than making these futile attempts to ruin other people’s marriages. Lesbian and gay couples aren’t hurting anybody. Leave them alone and let them be happy.
Rod, the last paragraph of your post sums up my own views as well. Very well said.
At a panel on gay rights last year, I came up with the line that the government has no more right to issue a marriage certificate that promises sacramental matrimony than it does to issue a death certificate that promises a place in the world to come. And I stand by that. When it comes to marriage as a legal contract instituted by a non-sectarian government, there is no “sanctity of marriage” to protect.
I say, civil unions for all and get the government out of the marriage business.
I’m not sure why this would be more controversial than the situation now in California. What the social left objects to is difference in treatment of straights and gays, and what the social right objects to calling a gay union “marriage.”
So scrap marriage, set up a system that encourages some sort of family stability in the way that marriage supposedly does, and call these legally established relationships civil unions. That should make the left happy and the right happy.
If a couple wants that union to be a marriage, then find a church (or an Elvis if you wish) to perform the ceremony.
[Eric wrote] >and what the social right objects to calling a gay union “marriage.”