California Court Overturns Same Sex Marriage Ban

This afternoon, Chief US District Judge Vaughn Walker issued a ruling that struck down California's Proposition 8 ban on same sex marriage. The God Squad immediately had a fit, while the gay and lesbian community relished a new victory. Papers appealing the decision were written up before Judge Walker even sat on the bench after lunch. This is probably going to the Supreme Court, and America is in for another Roe v. Wade style disaster. Congress needs to pass a law one way or the other, not the courts.

For the record, this journal supports marriage for both same sex and heterosexual couples. While religions may have various interests in marriage and who participates in them, these are irrelevant in a society where there is a separation of church and state. The state has but two interests in marriage: property rights and childcare. To prove this, consider what the courts need to decide in the event of a divorce. Marriage, as far as the state is concerned, is an exclusive contract between two adults. By entering into that contract, they undertake certain responsibilities and receive certain rights. The sex of the two parties does not affect this.

Of course, that is not what the Bedroom Police say. Michael Purdy, spokesman for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which supported Propositon 8 said, "California voters have twice been given the opportunity to vote on the definition of marriage in their state and both times have determined that marriage should be recognized as only between a man and a woman. We agree. Marriage between a man and woman is the bedrock of society. We recognize that this decision represents only the opening of a vigorous debate in the courts over the rights of the people to define and protect this most fundamental institution -- marriage."

Cardinal Francis George of the US Conference of Catholic Bishops agreed saying  "Marriage between a man and a woman is the bedrock of any society. The misuse of law to change the nature of marriage undermines the common good. It is tragic that a federal judge would overturn the clear and expressed will of the people in their support for the institution of marriage. No court of civil law has the authority to reach into areas of human experience that nature itself has defined."

This journal will only mention in passing the polygamist past (and some present) of the Mormon Church and the child molesting scandals of the Church of Rome. Perhaps, a re-reading of Matthew 7:3 would help them, "And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?" [KJV] Frankly, divorce is a greater threat than anything.

So from here, those who would ban same sex marriage will appeal to a 3-judge panel of the very liberal (well, for America, it's liberal) 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. Regardless of what that panel decides, the losing party will appeal either to the full 9th Circuit or to the Supreme Court directly. This process will likely take a couple of years. Sadly, Congress will not act in the interim, so again, American social law will be decided by judges. After the decision, the losing side will act just like the anti-abortion crowd does, kicking up a great deal of fuss, not getting anywhere, and diverting attention from matters that are more easily solved.

© Copyright 2010 by The Kensington Review, Jeff Myhre, PhD, Editor. No part of this publication may be reproduced without written consent. Produced using Ubuntu Linux.

Kensington Review Home