Home > Relationships & Family > Marriage & Divorce > Marriage & Divorce (Other)
Was the California Supreme Court right in legalizing gay marriage?
Results so far:
| Yes | 52% | 383 votes | Total: 739 votes | |
| No | 48% | 356 votes |
Yes
by Toye Gillman
Created on: February 13, 2009
The California Supreme Court was absolutely correct when it legalized gay marriage. The fact is, like interracial marriage, gay marriage should never have been illegal. Marriage, in and of itself, should not be a part of the law at all, but a part of religion.
I have become so tired of hearing people quote the Bible, when stating their opposition to gay marriage. "Marriage" is a word used in legalities that is there simply because at the time of implementation, there was no other word to use. In law, the word carries many rights along with it. For example, the passing down of property is automatic, if you will. When my father passed away, my Mother automatically became the sole owner of their joint property. My Mother was eligible to be carried on my Father's employer-provided health insurance-no questions asked.
I have heard the religious right say over and over that the gays are out to destroy the "family." They contend that somehow gay marriage will jeopardize their own marriages. How is this possible? Couples marry every day all over the world. I have yet to see how one couple's marriage diminishes, or in any other way, affects other couples' marriages. Even the federal "Defense of Marriage Act" by its very name insinuates that the marriages of gay couples will somehow negatively affect marriage altogether. Opponents of gay marriage continually claim that allowing same-sex couples to legally marry will "open the door" for all kinds of sordid relationships to be sanctioned. They group gay marriage together with the worst perversions, bestiality and pedofilia, for example. What does gay marriage have in common with such unsavory practices?
Marriage is simply a word. That is all. Unfortunatley, to attain the many rights that come with it, people must become "married." What is it other than direct discrimination to tell a group of people they cannot have certain legal rights and protections because they are not married, and then make it illegal for them to marry? When this group seeks to gain this right, it is said they are seeking "special" rights. What is special about having the same rights as every other American?
I would ask anyone who is against legalizing gay marriage what they would do if they were told by the government that they could not legally marry the person they loved. What would they do if they did not have the rights that go along with marriage, such as collecting the pension of their spouses, inheriting property, or even further, from adopting a child? I believe there would be a riotous uproar, the likes of which we've never seen in this country! After all, it was not so long ago that the black community rose up and demanded their rights. Today, we would not even think of keeping a black man from marrying a white woman, or visa versa. There is strength in numbers. If the gay community were as large as the black community, this would no longer be an issue.
The successful passage of the Proposition 8 ballot measure further brings into question-should the majority ever have the ability to decide on the rights of the minority? Never did I think there would be such a day in America. Never did I think our country and so many government leaders would condone the overt and obvious discrimination of a minority group, the very taking away of existing rights.
It is my opinion that the word "marriage" should be stricken from all our constitutions, both federal and on the state level and be replaced with the phrase "civil union" or something comparable, so the question of equal rights would be answered once and for all. Heterosexual and same-sex couples should all be equal under the law, including the word they use to describe a binding life partnership. Marriage could then be reserved for religious ceremonies and records. If a couple wished to seek a marriage, they could go to whatever church they chose to have the ceremony. They would also be required to file for a civil union with the government. Those who would prefer not to have a "marriage," whether they be gay or straight, could file their civil union with the government and be protected under the law-all without having the word "marriage" clouding the issue. To those who would say the gay community wants special rights, I say that marriage, as it stands in today's legal realm, is not a "gay" right. It is a "human" right. It is time ALL of America had equal rights.
Learn more about this author, Toye Gillman.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
No
by Joyce Beckman
Created on: August 15, 2008
NO to Gay Marriages!
Just because a court says it is legal for gays to get married does not make it right. Judges are fallible, just like the rest of us. The California voters overwhelmingly (61% in favor) voted to have marriage defined as between a man and a woman in 2001. Who are the judges to throw the will of the people out and overturn the law enacted by the legislature?
The courts are not intended to make law;they were set up to interpret law. The US and state legislatures enact law. The court's narrow ruling shows that they are divided over the issue of the constitutionality of gay marriage. The state of Massachusetts is the only other state to sanction gay marriage. Where does this put those who have availed themselves of legal marriage in those 2 states? What happens when they relocate to states that do not recognize their marriages? I think and hope we are headed to a US Constitutional Amendmend defining marriage as between one man and one woman. My reasons are clearly stated below.
I do not know of a single major society (not individual countries) that lauds same sex unions over the natural man-woman unions. You have to admit that woman/woman cannot produce children on their own without a male being involved in providing the sperm; nor can male/male partnerships produce children without the aid of female ovum and uterus.
I believe God gave certain people attraction to their same sex. I cannot claim to understand this tendency nor do I think it is fair to homosexuals. Life is not fair. It is difficult often, but certainly never fair. I do not hate gays or lesbians. One of the best bosses I ever had is a lesbian, but she kept it out of the professional workplace. Still, if I had been invited to a marriage ceremony between her and her "bride" I would not have attended.
Christianit y is not the only faith that disavows same-sex unions as unnatural and abhorrent. We should have someone of the Islamic faith speak to their tenets on this. What does the great prophet Mohammed say about this? What is the Islamic punishment for homosexual practices?
What about Judaism? I know the Old Testament speaks quite clearly about how God abhors the practice of homosexuality. I do not believe that God condemned Sodom and Gomorrah for their homosexuality but rather for the violence its people exhibited in forcing this practice on others and the complete lack of sanctions against this practice. God does not speak to why he endowed certain people with homosexual desires. God, however, has spoken that these practices should be avoided and that he abhors this practice.
Another writer brought many biblical versus into the discussion to support the No viewpoint. I will add 1 Corinthians 7:1-2 and 8-9. Verse 1 begins: "Now about the questions you asked in your letter. Yes, it is good to live a celibate life. (2) But because there is so much immorality, each MAN shold have his own WIFE and each WOMAN should have her own HUSBAND." Verse 8-10 - "Now I say to those who are not married and to widows - it is better to stay unmarried, just as I am. But if they cannot control themselves, they should go ahead and marry. It is better to marry than to burn with lust." Neither St. Paul nor any of the other apostles or disciples sanctioned gay marriage.
Do you who voted Yes on this(apparently a majority) think this is moral? This nation is headed for a big fall. It breaks my heart. All the past great civiliations (lasting much longer than we have been around)were defeated in large part because they practiced all kinds of depravity.
I wonder what is next. We are on a dangerous path. Next our courts will be legalizing bestiality and bestial marriages. Well, what about NAMBLA (Google it if you don't know what it is)? It will not be long before men are allowed to marry mere boys. Then, as someone has so aptly pointed out, why not reverse the ban on polygamy, and why not make it legal for a woman to marry several men?
I, for one, do not even believe in sanctioning gay unions without marriage. What's the difference between the two? One of my pastors said he did not have any objection to gays joining the congregation, just that he would expect them to be abstinent from sex the same as he would expect any unmarried people to be chaste and abstain from sex outside of marriage. I certainly know it is very hard to ignore one's lust either for same sex or opposite sex. It is a matter of self-control; albeit difficult, it is not impossible.
In closing, I am fearful of the future for our society since it is headed down this very slippery slope to destruction.
Learn more about this author, Joyce Beckman.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
Write and get published
Share with other writers
Polish your freelancing skills
Quality articles from proven freelancers
Exclusive rights, fast turnaround
Brand engagement, business blogging -- our writers do it all
INFORMATION
Copyright © 2002-2012 Helium, Inc. All rights reserved.
Helium.com: A Service of RR Donnelley