The article is about a federal appeals court that agreed with a lower
court’s ruling on Tuesday about Proposition 8. The lower level court had ruled
that even though Proposition 8 has passed by 52% to 48% it is in violation of the
constitutional right for same-sex couples. Judge Walker, who ruled in the lower
court, said that denying a same sex marriage is in violation of the Equal Protection
and the Due Process clauses in the Constitution. The judges that ruled on
Tuesday stated that they were not going to rule whether it was a constitutional
right for a same-sex couple to marry; instead the ruling was about how
Proposition 8 violated the Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause. Mitt Romney
stated the decision was an attack on traditional marriage and said that the
Supreme Court would eventually to decide on the issue. Chad Griffin of the
American Foundation for Equal Rights, made a statement where he explained that
same-sex marriage has increased steadily from a decade ago, if it does come to
vote again the outcomes may be different.
This
issue is important because Proposition 8 in violation of Due Process and
California is in violation of Equal protection. The 14th amendment
is about Due Process; a court cannot rule without everyone being present. The
reason why Proposition 8 is in violation on Due Process is because not every
same-sex couple in America’s rights were heard. When Proposition 8 was being
voting on only the same-sex couples in California’s were allowed to vote. What
about all the same-sex couples in other states, Proposition 8 directly affects
them as well. This comes to the second issue of California being in violation
of Equal Protection. Equal Protection means every state must have equal
protection of a citizen’s rights. Since New York legalized gay marriage, if a
same-sex couple moves from New York to California their marriage is no longer
recognized. Judge Reinhardt ruled on Tuesday, “All that Proposition 8
accomplished was to take away from same-sex couples the right to be granted a
marriage license.” Since California does not grant marriage licenses to
same-sex couples any couple moving from New York to California are now seen as
being single.
Same-sex
marriage has become a major issue in the past few decades. Religious people
claim same-sex marriages are wrong, and that they ruin the sanctity of
marriage. For Mitt Romney, who is a presidential candidate, to claim that the
decision the judge made was an attack traditional marriage shows that his
religion is seeping into political issues. If America is supposed to be a
nation with the separation of church and state then Romney should not have made
the statement he did. The argument made about gay marriage is always tied into
religion, but what about atheist. Should atheist be denied the chance to marry
someone of the same sex just because religious people believed same-sex
marriages are wrong?
10 comments:
This blog post was a very interesting read to say the least. I do have a couple of issues that I would like to highlight in respond to some of the statement made in the blog. First; the fourteen amendments was intended to limit the power of state and to grant the federal government oversight authority over the state especially in the areas in civil rights. My concern is wither or not is a right that is protected under the constitution. Second; on the issue of political involvement in judiciously decision by political candidates to be precise, there issue of separation of powers. Mitt Romney is a candidate running for the republican nomination of President of the United States. He currently does not occupy the office of president of the United States. Therefore he is completely justified in exercising his first amendment right of free speech by criticizing a moral attack on his religious belief by a secular and increasly perverted judicial system that is advocating for barbarerick unholy unions of same sex individual.
Finally I would like to say that I am not opposing personally to gay marriage. I believe all individual within the borders of our great nation should be afforded the opportunity to peruse the greatest degree of happiness possible as long as their actions don’t infringe upon the liberties of other. However while individuals of the homo sexual persuasion is undoubtly entitled to equal protection under the law. I do empathize with the sentiment of Mr. Romney, not solely on a moral basis, but on a social welfare perspective. As individuals of same sex unions gain legitimacy a flood gate of other potentially harmful repercussions will follow. Issues involving adoption, insurance, health benefits, custody of minor dependents and a variety of legal and property disputes will tear into the fabric of our great society, causing irreparable harm.
I feel like this is about time that same sex couples were allowed to be married. When we read the Mormon question the government said that marriage was in the governments jurisdiction and not just the religion. That is how polygamy was taken out. Therefore, I felt that if there is separation of church and state, then why are people allowing their church beliefs to hinder what the government is deciding. Most people's objection to same sex marriages is based on church beliefs. I feel like when the government was deciding to ban same sex marriage they were doing so off of their religious beliefs. I hope that this case will open doors for same sex marriages in other states.
Civil and legal rights are core interests for same-sex marriages. It is precisely about adoption, insurance, health benefits, and all legal matters. These rights and privileges should not be denied to couples. The term ‘marriage’ should be broadened to include same sex individuals. The traditional understanding of marriage is based on a religious belief. Tuesday’s decision shows signs of a continuous conversation and redefining of the meaning of same-sex‘marriage,’ moving from the broad understanding of equal protection and due process clauses of the Constitution to a narrower understanding to mean the equal treatment of married couples and domestic partners.
I have to agree with the ruling here. Many of the arguments that are being made against gay marriage are very similar to the arguments that were made against interracial marriage. Just because the target has shifted does not make the situation morally right. Homosexual couples face very real challenges today that heterosexual couples do not. You do not encounter stories where a man or woman is denied the right to see their dying spouse in the hospital, but you do see cases where despite having living wills granting the privilege homosexual couples are denied that last bit of comfort. I think this ruling shows that we are learning from the past and that separate but equal is not truly equal.
I understand where Mitt Romney is coming from when he says that he believes gay marriage is "an attack on traditional marriage," but I completely disagree.
Gay couples who want to marry have completely bought into the idea of traditional marriage. If one harps on the historical heterosexual nature of marriage, then yes there is friction, but the most important aspects of traditional marriage such as monogamy, love, support, and a lifetime of commitment, are still there. If anything, gay couples are promoting the continuation of traditional marriage.
In regards to the actual legal aspect, aren't states obligated to recognize legal certificates, including marriage licences, from other states? As this is shaping up to be an interstate problem, as well as a civil rights one, can the federal government step in to protect a minority from the majority even if marriage is a state issue? Does no one think that that voting on and opposing a minority's civil rights based on religious reasons oppose the civil liberties this country was founded to protect?
I believe that this ruling is an interesting one indeed and to echo Joyce, this is an ongoing conversation about where marriage falls within the jurisdiction of the government. In The Mormon Question we saw that there was a huge debate over whether marriage should be considered a religious or governmental issue. In the end, the government decided that it had the right to sanction a particular type of marriage and with that outlawed polygamy. If the government is to stand for the rights of a monogamous relationship, as it defined in The Mormon Question, why should gay marriage be treated any differently? The government has the charge to protect the rights of people and from what we have seen, also the obligation to protect the concept of monogamous relationships. Therefore, shouldn't the government have an obligation to protect the rights of monogamous same-sex marriages? I must say that the government is doing its civic duty in protecting those rights of the couples within California and upholding the sanctity of the monogamous relationship.
I agree with many of the previous comments. The definition of marriage by dictionary.com is: “the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc.” Obviously the definition of marriage needs to be reworded to encompass modern day life. This definition is a formation of religious terms and traditional terms. What about modern terms? Once the definition of marriage has been changed, that is one large step towards the views on same sex marriage being changed. I believe this because many people refer to the definition of marriage and point out that is an agreement between a “man and woman”. Once changed, people will no longer be able to refer to a definition as a source of backup.
I will have to agree with Rebekah on Mitt Romney opinion on Gay Marriage where he states that gay marriage is “an attack on traditional marriage. I have to disagree as well.
When you think of marriage, you think of unity between two people. In the Mormon Question the issue was would marriage be in the hands of the government or church, the outcome was left in the hands of the government. They outlawed polygamy because of the different issues that arose from having more than one spouse. When looking at gay marriage it is very similar to a traditional marriage, and the people who believe that it shouldn’t be legalized are basing it on religious views. Because gay marriage is similar to traditional marriage, there won’t be as many issues arising where the government will have to make unfamiliar decisions. In the end legalizing gay marriage is a government decision, therefore all religious views should be left out when coming to an agreement.
I think I have to disagree with the notion that political officials should not explicitly express their personal religious beliefs. It seems to me that the popular understanding of the government/ politics as a radically secular institution fails to account for the very real and influential personal beliefs of public officials. We have seen in both the Gordon and the Wenger books that governmental officials often make policy decisions based at less in part on religious beliefs. I would much rather our politicians be transparent about their theological and ideological influences.
"opposite charges attract and like charges repel" that has always been the norm of the society. A man and a women are two opposites that attract. But i guess its 21st century and anything is possible these days. so gay couples should be allowed to marry. There are consequences, just like any marriage. But its the decision of court to legalize and i know the court does not rule on basis of religious beliefs.
Post a Comment