BallotVox

LGBT Rights - Part II

So in the last post, where we mentioned that gay rights hadn’t really come up yet? Well that was wrong; they just had. Yesterday, California’s Supreme Court ruled that gay and straight couples must be treated equally when it comes to marriage. It’s hard to image that gay marriage won’t now figure in the campaign — even though all of the candidates oppose it.

To begin with, something lighthearted found by Sarolta Cump: for 21-year-old Will from Chicago, words were not enough to express his happiness about the California news:

For coakford at Random Thought, the ruling was less welcome. S/he feels that the definition of marriage should a matter of public policy, not one for the courts:

Today, the California Supreme Court decided by a 4 to 3 vote that it knows better than the people of California. In 2000, the voters in California overwhelmingly passed Proposition 22, stating that marriage in California is between a man and a woman. Today, the will of the citizens of California was ruled unconstitutional. […]

Society defines the rights and the obligations of marriage. It determines, for example, the appropriate age when an individual can marry. An age limit is a limitation imposed by the society. If society can impose an age limitation, it can also impose limits on how marriage is defined.

I have had mixed feelings about a federal constitutional amendment on marriage. In 1996, the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) was passed, a federal version of Prop 22. It defines marriage for federal purposes as being between a man and a woman and allows states not to recognize same-sex marriage performed in other states. Because some activist judges have decided that the courts are the way to make social change, laws such as DOMA and Prop 22 are no longer enough to protect the institution and the concept of marriage. I think it is now time to move a federal constitutional amendment forward that will take the definition of marriage out of the purview of the courts. This is an issue that should be debated in legislatures where public policy issues should be decided.

Ordinary everyday christian is unruffled by the gay marriage decision, noting that evangelical divorce rates are comparable to those in the general population and that heterosexuals haven’t “done all that good a job at recognizing the sanctity of marriage.” S/he says:

Please don’t get the idea that I am endorsing gay marriage or “civil unions” or anything of the sort. I’m not. The Bible doesn’t recognize gay marriage, Western law and philosophy doesn’t recognize gay marriage, and society as a whole doesn’t want gay marriage. My point is that evangelicals need to put just as much effort into preserving the sanctity of marriage in the church as they do in “protecting” marriage against gays and lesbians.

W.C. Varones at PoliPundit (”elections and politics with a Conservative bent”) is philosophical about the political outcome:

My view? Schwarzenegger’s budget: an atrocity. A couple of gay guys committing to each other: not so much.

[…] Politically, it’s a marginal plus for Republicans/conservatives, as it fires up the base… although California is pretty much a lost cause anyway.

Don Q Blogger from Northern Virginia, on the other hand, worries about the national political fallout:

The California Supreme Court has opened another door for gay marriage. But will it be slammed shut in November? Conservatives have already gotten a million signatures to put a “no gay marriage” amendment to the state constitution for election day. […]

I just hope this won’t be like 2004, when gay marriage clearly worked to the benefit of the Republicans.

And to close, again found by Sarolta Cump, a celebratory tongue-in-cheek drama from vlogger Jeffery Self and his friend Cole:

Now replay it and just watch Cole’s facial expressions.