There have been no major surprises in the federal trial challenging California’s Proposition 8 and its ban on gay marriage.
U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker listened to the final arguments yesterday in San Francisco. A judgment is except later this summer.
I’m not trying to seem insensitive or disinterested, but the fact of the matter is this trial is legal equivalent of a NFL preseason game. Regardless of which side Walker decides in favor of, the issues is destined for appeals court and ultimately the Supreme Court. It seems unthinkable the SCOTUS wouldn’t agree to hear the case.
What has not diminished, as is most disconcerting, is some of the vitriol being shot out on both sides of the argument. There are ways of disagreeing civilly. Unfortunately, it isn’t happening as much as should, and that means both sides of the equation. Comments on the coverage by the Los Angeles Times and the Washington Times shows this unfortunate dynamic.
Be First to Comment
Yes indeed, it’s a stepping stone to equality and fairness in marriage rights. Onward, Joe Mustich, Justice of the Peace, Washington, Connecticut, USA.
While it’s true that the Constitution doesn’t define “marriage,” the federal government has complicated things by taking a vested interest in married couples for the purposes of tax law and Social Security (among the 1,138 legal benefits, protections, and responsibilities that are automatically bestowed on couples once they marry). This is not an issue that can be left up to the states to decide individually, since it wouldn’t do for a Gay couple that is legally married in Iowa, for instance, to become automatically UN-married once they decide to move somewhere else. Religious beliefs are irrelevant, because (1) the United States is not theocracy, and (2) churches will continue to be free to conduct or deny ceremonies to whomever they want. Procreation and parenting are irrelevant, since couples do not have to marry to have children, and the ability or even desire to have children is not a prerequisite for getting a marriage license. This is simply a matter of equal treatment under the law. The quest for marriage equality by Gay couples has absolutely nothing to do with Straight (i.e. heterosexual) couples. Nothing is changing for them. Nothing is happening to â€œtraditional marriage.â€ Most people are Straight, and they will continue to date, get engaged, marry and build lives and families together as they always have. None of that will change by allowing Gay couples to do the same. This is really not any sort of a â€œsea changeâ€ for marriage, since the only difference between Gay and Straight couples is the gender of the two persons in the relationship. You should ask yourself why law-abiding, taxpaying Gay Americans should be forced to subsidize all the legal benefits and responsibilities that Straight couples enjoy, when we are unable to take advantage of those same incentives to marry. And since when do voters get to decide that the rights they enjoy should NOT apply to minorities?
Itâ€™s very simple: either you are equal or you are not. As for the importance of marriage, itâ€™s evident from all that has happened that christians, especially conservative ones, are absolutely obesessed with it. Their only interest in civil unions is as a ploy to prevent homosexuals from being married. Otherwise they are opposed to civil unions, or any other recognition of homosexual relationships at all. They have marriage; they donâ€™t want homosexuals to have it, too. This is mean-spirited, vain, and malicious, and, as it turns out, of what christianity mostly consists in practice.