by William Santagata

Created on: May 30, 2008

Much has been said on this issue, so I will keep my response short and to the point, addressing each issue that I have come across listening to debates on television and radio news.

1) "The California Supreme Court over-ruled the will of the people."

Yes they did, and that's their job. The job of the Supreme Court is to strike down unconstitutional laws. The Supreme Court found that the equal protection clause in the California State Constitution meant that if marriage is given to opposite-sex couples, then it would be denying equal rights to not give the same to same-sex couples. If the people of California voted to, say, legalize slavery, the Court would have every right to overturn the people's will there too.

2) The fundamental, traditional definition of marriage is being changed. Marriage has always been between a man and a woman.

Yes, but this is not a bad thing. For the longest time marriage was defined as the union between a man and a woman of the same race. The same battle that is being fought now, for same-sex marriage, is exactly the same as the fight waged in the 1950s and 1960s to get states to recognize and perform inter-racial marriages. And even before this, marriages were arranged and a dowry system was in place. The definition of marriage has changed frequently.

3) Why didn't the California Supreme Court say that equal rights had to apply to polygamy and incestuous relationships as well?

One chooses to be a polygamist, and one chooses to enter into an incestuous relationship, putting these into a different class than homosexuality. And while one chooses to enter into a homosexual relationship, there is no alternative for a gay person (s/he is biologically barred from being attracted to a member of the opposite sex whereas a person in an incestuous relationship has millions of other people not related to him to choose from). Furthermore, many of the rights granted to married couples simply do not work when applied to three or more person relationships, and there are genetic risks that result from inbreeding, all reasons that place polygamy and incest in a completely different sphere than same-sex relationships.

Overall, Western society as a whole is gradually becoming more accepting of homosexuality. It is no longer classified as a mental illness, hurts no one in any real way (offending the sensibilities of overly religious zealots is not a "real" way). Many (I would hope that "most" holds true here, but I cannot say for certain) understand that homosexuality is an unchangeable aspect of a person that is not a choice, and cannot be taught to others or passed on. Furthermore, same-sex couples can be just as loving and committed as any opposite-sex couple, making them fully deserving of all the rights and benefits granted to heterosexuals.

Learn more about this author, William Santagata.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.