Ban on Same-Sex Marriage Now in Court
California's gay marriage ban is now on trial. Beginning today, Monday, 11 January, the court is examing the ban. Currently, five U.S. states and the District of Columbia approve gay marriage.
California approved it after a court decision there, but it changed after Proposition 8 banning same-sex marriage passed in November 2008. It left California in the odd position of having legally approved same-sex marriages that were now against the constitution, which also didn't allow the state to force divorces on those already married.
Regardless of how this case of two same-sex couples is decided, the decision is likely to be appealed to the U. S. Supreme Court. America's final court may then well make a decision that will greatly affect marriage through all of America.
In a fundamental question in the current case, District Court Chief Judge Vaughn Walker asked lawyer Ted Olson about state-controlled marriage. Olson, who is arguing in favor of same-sex marriage, was key to getting George W. Bush elected president by, essentially, one vote in the U. S. Supreme Court after a recounting of the inaccurate Florida voting was denied. Walker asked if the goverment could get out of the marriage business. Olson responded, Yes, I believe it could."
Here, we largely agree with Olson. Why can't marriage be returned to being a social and/or religious institution, and not something completely controlled by big government? Participants could sign a contract on how their assets and child custody could be handled, and would have a choice of contracts. Now, the government tells you who you can marry and how. Couldn't that be a decision guided by your own conscience?
For more information, see http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34801259/ns/us_news-life/.
To see all our entries on gay marriage, click on http://www.loveshade.org/blog-mt/mt-search.fcgi?IncludeBlogs=1&search=gay+marriage
Image is from http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/j/MSNBC/Components/Photo/_new/g-cvr-100111-marriage1-9a.hmedium.jpg. No threat to its copyright is intended.
Comments
Why is the state in marriage? And why one woman one man? Love is love and the law shouldn't stop it from happening.
Posted by: TawTew the Naturally Perfumed | January 11, 2010 11:49 PM
As my best friend Lorien says, they should not make laws against love. Love should be free and people can marry who they want. The government is to protect our rights, yes, not to take them away.
Many years ago my mother and father could not have married. I would not be born nor my brothers. The president himself would not be born.
Can marriage be against people of the same sex marrying because they cannot have children? Many couples marry who do not have nor want children. That is their right. And gay couples should be let to adopt if they want children. Many children want homes. We do not have a shortage of people so we do not have to make all married people have more children.
Posted by: Mindy Yuko | January 12, 2010 01:50 AM
I agree. Love is love and shouldn't be restricted by small minded people. There are people who hate gays and would like the police to look the other way while they beat gays up. Those days are gone. I say let gays marry.
Posted by: Vernon Avaritt | January 12, 2010 02:34 PM
Because marriage is an institution created by God for one man and one woman. In the beginning it was Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve. It wasn't Abigail and Eve either. Men and women are made to go together, and that's the only way people can be born. If everyone decided to be gay how long do you think people would last? Let's do as God intended and ban gay marriage.
Posted by: Christian Andy | January 12, 2010 06:06 PM
Andy you with that thing again? Didn't somebody already point out that the Bible approves polygamy? If you come on here supporting polygamy then we'll listen to you.
Lesbian girls, would you believe I'm a lesbian in a man's body? I'm not ready to get married but might get engaged.
Posted by: Rev. Bootie | January 13, 2010 06:43 PM
Can't get married
if you are gay,
cuz illegal love
is the American way.
Posted by: MJ Lover | January 14, 2010 07:04 AM
I approve this message in the most loquacious manner.
Posted by: Mr Fantastic | January 14, 2010 08:47 PM
I don't know why the government should decide who can love who. But can you have marriage if its not legal? Isn't that living together?
Posted by: Marie Gilbert | January 16, 2010 05:22 PM
Marriage is a legal institution, but can have legal protections without being "controlled by the state." The idea of a signed contract between the parties involved could cover the legal aspects without the government regulation who marries whom. But some level of regulation will stay, and probably should stay. Otherwise, people could be stuck with a marriage made before they had any concept of what was involved. The factor of consent, I think, should be the deciding factor.
And polygamy, and sometimes polyandry, are legally acceptable in parts of the world. I see no good reason they couldn't be in America.
Posted by: Jay Oppenheimer | January 18, 2010 09:03 PM
No, Marie. That's not the same. One gives legal protection the other doesn't. Depending on where you live.
Posted by: Rev. Bootie | January 19, 2010 12:45 PM
How can one man satisfy two wives? Two women under one roof is conflict. Men and women produce children but gays do not.
Posted by: Mayumi Canton | January 24, 2010 02:26 PM
I don't know. Next people will be marrying their own brothers and sisters.
Posted by: Ad Bus | January 31, 2010 02:40 PM