A federal judge in California overturned a 2008 ban on same-sex marriages this week, pushing the visceral debate on the rights of the gay and lesbian communities back into the spotlight.
In his ruling on the "Perry versus Schwarzenegger" case Judge Vaughn Walker said the challenges against Proposition 8, the ballot measure that forbade same-sex marriages, were independently meritorious as the Proposition "unconstitutionally burdens the exercise of the fundamental right to marry and creates an irrational classification on the basis of sexual orientation".
Judge Walker further said that Proposition 8 failed to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license and in fact the evidence suggested that it sought to enshrine into California law the notion that opposite-sex couples were superior to same-sex couples.
However in a move that was said to increase the odds of a continuing battle in the case, the judge also issued a parallel stay on his own order, to remain in effect until arguments by supporters of Proposition 8 were heard in higher courts. Further, as long as the stay was valid, same-sex couples would not be able to apply for marriage licenses.
Yet some experts were reported to have said that it was "unlikely" that Judge Walker would extend the stay much beyond this week, when the deadline he set for further plaintiff and defendant filings expires.
Earlier this year, the often-conservative U.S. capital, Washington DC, saw a same-sex couple tie the knot under the district’s new same-sex marriage law that was ratified by a Supreme Court decision in March.
The Obama administration’s position on the matter is that it "supports full civil unions and federal rights for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgendered couples and opposes a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage".
Keywords: Judge Vaughn Walker, gay marriage ban, same sex couples, Proposition 8
To people that say "marriage was made by God as a union between man and woman",I'd like to present the following:
1. If you look at the history of human socio-cultural evolution from stone age to the present day, man has always been in hunter-gatherer societies for more than 90% of the time. Agriculture, Civilization, preservation of food and wealth and forming an organized society is a recent phenomenon, in that sense. With these came marriage as a way of preservation of lineage, sharing of common wealth, control of flow of wealth. Marriage was therefore man-made! There are a archaeological, architectural, cultural and literary evidences to prove this. Moreover, there still are some tiny pockets of the world, spread over Africa, Australia, East Indies, India, Central Asia and the Americas where tribal societies have managed to stay disconnected from the influences of the "mainstream values" dictated by the popular religions of the world. Perhaps, as a result of this, these people have managed to preserve their ancient ways of life. Many of these societies are polygamous, polyandrous(one woman sharing her life with a certain number of exclusive male partners), polygynandry (multiple men in some sort of a household or a kind of exclusive relationship to a certain set of women), some of them have no concept of marriage and a few of these societies even have members engaging in homosexual acts and relationships that is accepted by their societies. These are drastically different perspectives than ours. But this is part of life for our friends from these tribal societies. Our religions and our popular culture have indoctrinated us to look down upon these perspectives. Most of us have an inherent bias that our culture and way of life are superior to those of the rest of the world. Our history is full of battles and wars that were waged in the pursuit of economic and cultural dominance and because of the lack of tolerance for people that are different. Our great war heroes of the past have tried to rationlize these battles by introducing lofty ideals of supremacy or simply by using religion. But perhaps the real reason for such intolerance that led to these wars was fear of the unknown/unfamiliar! Many of us like to think of ourselves as being modern or sophisticated. But people that say "Marriage is between man and woman. And that is final. " are not doing one thing - studying history.
2. If marriage is for procreation, then what about the increasing numbers of heterosexual couples that chose to not have children for various reasons? Do we cancel their marriage licenses?
This country was found on the concept of freedom. This freedom is the right to choose your beliefs although they may differ. I should have the right to marry a Man or a Woman. If you disagree then so be it.
The only person we have a right to judge is oursleves.
If we are uncomfortable or not in agreement with another then we have the right to disagree and remove ourself from that situation and/or individual. We do not have the right to force them to see things our way or make a law based on a bias belief.
Marriage is for a man & a woman, and that is final. The heterosexual union is one of reproduction. With that said, life will not continue to exist with same sex people. I say people because regardless of the law, you will never be able to give the gift of life, because God created that for couples of the opposite sex, thus man & woman. Even animals have to be male & female to procreate. This has nothing to do with loving the homosexual, because I have family members that are gay. It has to do with respecting the union of marriage that God ....not man created for a man & woman. The legislature could change all the laws they want but the word of God will remain the same....
I was conceived and brought up by heterosexual parents in the company of heterosexual siblings in an openly heterosexual society. I was educated at a religious private school, which taught me all about loving heterosexual marriage. Without exception, dramaturgical portrayals of relationships to which I was exposed were heterosexual.
Notwithstanding this, I still managed to turn out entirely homosexual, which, given the above circumstances, could be said to be surprising. Gay was not an easy thing to be in the 1960's, when I could have been imprisoned, merely for having this positive interaction with another human being. Yet my life was made rewarding and fulfilling by the love and unstinting support of friends, colleagues, and most of all, my family who never once treated me any less favourably because my passion was for a person of the same gender as my own.
There is no doubt that LGBT rights we have already gained could never have made it into legislature without the overwhelming support given by the heterosexual majority, responding to our appeals for human compassion, justice and fair play.
There is also no doubt that the public perception of a great many cogent issues of public interest has been profoundly changed by individual activism and education, such as Aneurin Bevan's founding of the NHS in the UK, Florence Nightingale's championing of the high nursing standards we enjoy today, the enactment of women's suffrage, emancipation of slaves in the USA, and the outspoken advocacy of Harvey Milk. In all these cases public opinion changed, because it was ultimately seen to be right. The veil of ignorance and prejudice was lifted by strong individuals of high moral character, who never gave up.
While there is not universal support even in the gay and lesbian communities for gay marriage, few would want to deny this to people who seek it. Marriage has formalised the love and mutual commitment of countless heterosexual couples, and poll results on the subject now make it clear that increasing numbers do not wish to deny this to others wishing the same lawful acknowledgment for their relationships.
The granting of universal access to marriage and all that it connotes does not in any way threaten heterosexual marriage. The various heterosexual marriages of my family will be as strong as ever, no matter whether I have a gay marriage or not.
Please Email the Editor