California Prop 8 Battle Far From Over
The recent passage of California’s Proposition 8, the ballot initiative that eliminated the right of same sex couples to marry in the state led to the largest organized protest seen nationwide in recent history. That was 4 weeks ago and now the streets seem calm again. Despite the tranquility of recent days, one should expect the same sex marriage issue to rise again in the recent future.
The decision of the California State Supreme Court to hear arguments in the challenges to Prop 8 as soon as March 2009 seems to have dissipated the angry mobs. The Proposition 8 opposition would have had a tough time continuing their civil disobedience at the same level as the initial response anyways, so they have chosen more peaceful and constructive methods to wield their political muscle.
Staunch Prop 8 opposition is boycotting the establishments that contributed money or other in kind support to the Proposition 8 campaign. The gay community has also organized a boycott nationally to take place December 10.
The Prop 8 conflict will probably begin to heat up again after the judgment of the California Supreme Court, with both sides planning a response if they do not prevail. Prop 8 supporters, seeing several California Supreme Court justices will be seeking re-election soon are planning to push them out of office and replace them with justices who support Prop 8. Prop 8 opposition plans to revisit the same sex marriage issue on the 2010 ballot if the courts uphold the proposition.
The gay marriage debate is one that will likely dominate California politics for several years. The state seems deeply divided on the issue and many will not stop until their side prevails at the expense of their opponents.
A Thought: Are marriages really a concern of the state?
Many proponents of Proposition 8 felt that by eliminating the right of same sex couples to marry, they were effectively protecting religious organizations from being forced to adopt pro-gay beliefs. Examples include the Catholic Church being forced to give foster children to same sex adoptive couples in Massachusetts and churches in Canada being sued for not performing gay marriages. The recent eHarmony case is a similar example of such coercion.
Marriages, while having civil and legal ties, are actually a religious tradition. Why not keep marriage in the hands of religious organizations by having the state discontinue the issuing of marriage licenses all together? The state’s only responsibility would be to issue civil unions to couples regardless of sex and uphold their legal protections under that union.
Churches on the other hand would have the freedom to perform only the marriage ceremonies they deem appropriate through their religious tradition. Some churches will probably perform same sex marriage ceremonies, but those who don’t want to wouldn’t have to. Everyone would retain their right to privacy and all people would be treated equally under the law. This also clears up discussions of whether marriage laws violate the separation of church and state.
I think the state has been concerned about marriage because families are good for the economy.
Where did you find this information at? All of the research that I’ve done have concluded the opposite. It was around the time of the Middle Ages (1545 AD) when Christianity started getting involved in marriages. Both ancient Roman and Greek civilizations didn’t consider marriage a religious event. Most civilizations just accepted common law marriages, as some US states still do today. And just because something is tradition doesn’t necessary constitute that it is right.
The real problem is that the word “marriage” is trying to be redefined to mean a Christian marriage to exclude anyone other than Christians. The word marriage is generic and doesn’t have a strict religious meaning particular to a specific religion. Atheists, Agnostics, Buddhists, Hindu, Pastafarians, all get married and they aren’t Christians. As Americans, lots of people tend to relate the word “religious” to really mean Christianity, but there’s lots more religions and ideas out there in the rest of the world (and even in California).
I think that churches already have the right to refuse to marry someone in the US, since church marriage is optional and not required by the state. The only thing that is required is that you go to the county courthouse and fill out the marriage certificate form. You would think that if someone could sue for spilling hot coffee, then there’d already be a lawsuit from a one group suing a church.
Also, marriage is important for the state for taxes, insurance, entitlements, resolving legal issues, etc.
The reason why California can’t stop issuing marriage certificates is that all other US states would also need to adopt the same policy. Marriage certificates, like drivers licenses, are state issued certificates that are automatically accepted in other states. By having one state (or a few) change their terminology, that would require all other states to amend their laws to change it to marriage or civil unions.
Since the word marriage is already in use, why doesn’t Christian churches start using the phrase “holy matrimony” since that’s what is a common/traditional phrase used in Christian marriages? Since that phrase contains “holy” it implies religion and the phrase isn’t used in any laws, so it’s clean/clear to be used.
Why aren’t all of the ba-zillion NON-religious heterosexual couples barred from getting married in the U.S. ?
Aren’t their marriages just “Civil marriages” performed with a Justice of the Peace ?
THEY get to use the word “marriage”. We are “not allowed”. I don’t understand…..
[equality tax protest]