How about a little controversy, shall we? It’s been too long, hasn’t it?
If I only had to go by the reaction to the Judge Walker’s decision on California’s Proposition 8 that I saw on Twitter, Facebook, and television, I’d assume he was the people’s hero. I hope that’s not quite the case…I know I’m not the only one saddened by last Wednesday’s decision.
Though I don’t know if I’ve specifically mentioned it (in 999 posts…yes, that makes tomorrow’s the 1000th…get ready for it!), I don’t think you’d be surprised to find that I take the biblical, traditional, and (until recent years) only definition of marriage. We all have the right (regardless of our sexual preferences) to marry an unmarried adult of the opposite sex. Equal rights.
So yes, I was saddened by Judge Walker’s decision. But you may be surprised to know that what saddened me wasn’t primarily the decision against marriage.
First, I was disappointed that the federal government once again has unconstitutionally taken away power from the states. If the people of California decided to refine “marriage”, I would have to accept that (though I would still argue that they are wrong). That is their decision. But the decision was taken out of their hands. They no longer have that right.
And if they no longer have that right as the residents of California, I no longer have that right as a resident of North Carolina.
But more than that, what saddened me was that there is now a precedence for the out-right disregarding of gender.
We no longer have to use the slippery slope argument. You can get a judge to almost anything as long as they have a legal precedence to do it.
And now there is.
If gender no longer legally matters in marriage, should it in a draft? I think it’s pretty clear that the logical answer is “no.”
What about dorm room assignments?
The sex of chaperones on school trips?
“So God created man in his own image,
in the image of God he created him;
male and female he created them.” – Genesis 1:27, NASU
I think this is a pretty good time to remind you of the comment policy. Thanks, loves!
Photo by Joe Gratz
Even though I support gay marriage, for many reasons, I do agree with you that it should be a decision made by each individual state, not the federal government.
Jacki: I didn’t used to believe this was a state issue, but I do now. I actually think that most issues are actually state and local matters.
Politicalness and details aside I agree, the whole point is where the power resides. It’s unfortunate the government chose to revoke the power of the people.
Nothing I can add to that. All I can say is, bravo, and I agree 100%. It’s a travesty.
I think the problem is that the government shouldn’t be involved in marriage at all. I realize that because of tax breaks and related perks for married couples that the government is obligated to regulate marriage, but maybe that just means the government needs to stop giving special benefits to married couples.
Don’t get me wrong. I’m not opposed to marriage. I just think the whole concept has become a bit twisted with the government involved. It’s a personal decision and in many cases one that is closely tied to one’s religious beliefs.
The government has nothing to do with whether a child is christened, has a bar mitzvah or whether someone chooses to become baptized so what are they doing getting all caught up in marriage? As we’ve seen when the government starts deciding who can and cannot get married things get ugly.
I’m not going to comment on the topic of gay marriage because you and I disagree and I want to respect your opinion and the fact that this is your space to express it.
But as to the state vs federal aspect of the post, I agree that the people should have the power to amend their constitution and that this is, to some degree, a state issue, but all of this has to happen within the confines of the federal constitution. The ruling is that Prop 8 violated the federal constitution and that means that the people do not have the power to make the decision they made. It’s not that they had something taken away from them, it’s that they never had that ability and tried to do it anyway.
And the fact that it happened in California definitely does not mean a federal court in North Carolina would rule the same way. The Ninth Circuit (which includes California) is the most liberal in the federal court system. I live in the what is probably the most conservative federal circuit and I’m pretty confident our courts would have a different answer. Until it goes to the Supreme Court, the different federal courts are allowed to have conflicts.
I do wonder what your opinion on civil unions is – perhaps you can share that with us in another post?
While we disagree, I enjoy reading well-though out opinions that differ from mine. Thanks for the post. Sorry for the long comment.
Michelle: No need to apologize! I LOVE long comments (well, except for those ranty ones, but this isn’t one of those).
Of course the matter isn’t settled. But it is still disturbing that a federal judge so disregarded the Constitution while claiming to uphold it. He took individual rights and gave them to couples, something that the Constitution does not. We have equality of persons (praise God!), not equality of relationships (one type of relationship does not have to be treated like another).
As far as civil unions, I’m not really for them. I appreciate it not being called “marriage” when it’s not, but sometimes when something walks and quacks like a duck… I’d prefer state legislation that allows an individual to name any person as their next-of-kin (okay, so it could use a new name), affording them all the rights and responsibilities of such.
Thanks for the comment. Even though we don’t see eye to eye, we can still discuss it civilly!
Like the immediately previous commenter, I’d just note that the “people” don’t have the right to pass unconstitutional laws, whether that’s at the most local city council level, state ballots and referendums, or the big “people” – the US Congress. That’s why we have judicial review.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m a big huge giant fan of federalism. But in this case, the parties chose to challenge it in federal, not state, court (for many strategic reasons). The feds didn’t take anything away from me as a California voter. With the relative ease in getting ballot measures going, and the fact that they are rarely given the deliberative thought that legislation gets, and that this was in fact a constitutional amendment, I’m comforted by judicial review.
The real legal precedent has yet to be set; that will come when the 9th circuit reviews it. Their opinion is the most important, because that’s what the Supremes will (maybe) review…if they take the case.
That’s my few cents, for what it’s worth. I’ve got thoughts on his LEGAL reasoning (in the beast of a 136 page opinion) that I’ll keep to myself so as not to hijack your comments just to bore you :) I totally respect your opinions, just slightly disagree :) ps – sorry for any typos, on my phone!
Alissa: I think it’d be hard to remove marriage altogether from consideration. Taxes, sure. But what about how spouses of members of the military are treated? What about custody issues? Marriage *is* a foundational institution in our nation, whether or not it’s officially recognized.
Amanda: Thanks for commenting on this! I love our insane legal system, though the actions of certain individuals/groups along the way makes me scratch my head. I understand the desire to challenge Prop 8, and if it is unconstitutional, I wouldn’t want it in place. However, I couldn’t tell from his arguments (or really the summarizing of them that I’ve read in several different places with diverse political views) how he found it unconstitutional. I’m no lawyer (or law student like yourself) but I feel like as a well-educated, informed citizen I should be able to follow his argument, even if I might not agree with the end result or know everything about his basic suppositions.
I’m trying to think back to law school and the interracial marriage cases and I believe one of the arguments used to justify the anti-miscegenation statutes was that it was applied equally. Black people couldn’t marry white people but white people also couldn’t marry black people so therefore no equal protection argument. Everyone had the right to marry someone of their own race. This argument was rejected and I’m sure you and I both agree that was the right decision there.
I’m not sure it’s completely applicable here since race gets a higher standard under the law than gender (although marriage, as a fundamental right, gets the highest as well), but your response reminded me of that old argument.
This is a complicated issue. I don’t know where the lines are any better than you. I’m glad you got some people talking though. :)
Michelle: Yeah, definitely glad that was rejected. I think the difference is that there IS a difference between man and woman (not that we’re not equal).
Yes, it’s very complicated!
FGD…I am NOT getting into this discussion. You KNOW how I fell about all of this. GOD made man in His image…
Computer has been on the whacko, so have been out.
Hmmm, I have to respectfully (always respectfully) disagree. You said that “We all have the right (regardless of our sexual preferences) to marry an unmarried adult of the opposite sex. Equal rights.” How can this be equal if it means that people cannot marry someone that they want to share their life with? I don’t know how much I am “pro-gay” but I think that if you only allow marriage between members of the opposite sex, then you are creating a situation in which people will have affairs in their marriages just to satisfy their desire to be with the same sex sexually. I don’t think that situation is better.
But, it is a slippery slope. Like you said, the gender thing can be a big problem in other areas. As a teacher, we have recently found that you cannot just put girls and boys in seperate rooms. You have to know which boys are gay and which girls are lesbians and separate according to gender and sexual orientation, which is just confusing.
I have no “right” answers, but I have really enjoyed the discussion happening in the comments!
I enjoyed reading your post and it has given me more food for thought. The whole state’s rights versus Federal government is so complex on so many different levels I find it hard to maintain a consistent position. I tend to lean left and being from Northeast I am often suspicious of states in other parts of the country’s assertions. I liked your remarks and am rethinking this issue.
Cammy: I would never recommend someone to get married if they did not believe they could commit to that relationship (regardless of their sexual orientation). Not everyone has to get married, it’s not a rite of passage, and single adults are worthy individuals contributing to society (like you and me!).
That’s interesting about the splitting up students…is that a school policy, or is that coming from further up?
Pbenjay: Glad I got you thinking! It’s still something I’m sorting out as well (as you can see in this comments section). We live in strange times, and we have a lot to consider that never was an issue previously.
I’m impressed by the intelligence and candor of your commentors. Well done ladies!
Personally, while I’m not particularly pro-gay (it bothers me that there has to be a parade and special celebrations for them around the nation, but to have a hetero-day or parade would be considered highly non-PC), I fully understand their need to push for these kinds of legislative decisions because of what the law allows married couples versus non-married couples. Committed couples should have the same rights, regardless of gender.
The old argument that you’re not really committed if you’re not married can’t be put on them if they’re not allowed to marry. I’m not sure what the answer is. Perhaps some kind of recognition that allows the same rights as married people. Rather than a marriage license it’s a joining license (or whatever they’d end up calling it). The sole purpose could be simply to allow these couples the same rights as a man and a woman joined in marriage – health benefits, visitation in the hospital, estate, children (all the rules that apply to custody, travel, legal guardianship, etc.), etc. Wow, this turned into a ramble. Thanks for a great opinion post!
i am so impressed with the respect shown in these comments. i’ve seen other blogs where commenting gets out of hand, so it is so refreshing to see respectful commenting on such a tough issue.
i honestly have so many opinions floating around in my head concerning the legalization of gay marriage. As a Christian i believe in the definition of marriage as between a man and a woman. Yet i also wonder about the ability of that definition being legally enforced upon everyone, even those who do not believe in my definition of marriage. And i wonder about the ability of Americans to voice their opinions in voting if it is possible for votes to be overturned by a single judge.
i have a friend at seminary who voiced a very similar opinion as Alissa, and the more i think about it, the more i see its merits. He stated that marriage should be defined as a Christian event, held in a church, closer to the Catholic understanding that it is a ordinance of the Church. The government should not be involved in that marriage, and it would only be recognized by the Church universal. For government purposes, there should be civil unions, where two consenting adults (whether same-sex or opposite sex) are legally recognized as a couple and receive all the perks that married couples do today. Those who want the govt. perks would have a civil union ceremony with a county judge. Those that wanted to be recognized by the Church would have a marriage ceremony performed by a minister of their denomination…or even their religion. And those that want both would have both.
i realize that may be more compromise than some are willing to give, but i thought it was an option worth considering.
Heligirl: I always say I have the best commenters! It really is a messy situation, and one I don’t have the easy answers to. Like I said above, I’m okay with some sort of declaration of “next-of-kin” (but with a new name, probably!) where you can legally declare who gets to make the decisions if you are unable, visit you in the hospital, etc. But I don’t think it’s necessary to legally recognize non-married couples.
Melaina: I try hard to set the right tone in my post, and my commenters follow suit. I like the idea of the government getting out of marriage completely, but I can’t see how that’d practically work. The fact that marriage is a foundational institution in our society (and rightfully so) can not be ignored.
I’m going to respectfully disagree with your views on gay marriage, but I was quite flabbergasted you think the draft should only apply to men. I don’t at all think it’s clear the draft should only apply to men. It’s incredibly sexist. I, for one, want true equality. I don’t want any different or special treatment because I’m a woman (or if I were a man.) If we will ever reach a truly equal society, it takes common sense to truly be gender-blind and realize the differences we have are cultural. I’m devastated I live in a country where the Equal Rights Amendment could not guarantee my rights to equality. It saddens me to see an intelligent woman like you espouse sexism. With that sad, I understand I will never change your mind nor will you change my mind, but I would expect you not assume everyone wants to live in a sexist world as you do.
Carrie: I wasn’t arguing for or against the draft being for men only, I was just stating that it’d be a logical next step, and one that I know many people would be unhappy with.
Obviously, we disagree, but while I maintain that all people ARE equal (praise God!), we aren’t all the SAME. Gender differences are obvious and to deny them is to be foolish.
I know that the evangelical complementarian view is often confused with sexism…that’s a topic I need to address here.
Because I’m not religious and completely and totally disagree with your beliefs about marriage, I’m going to avoid that completely, ha. I’d rather simply not talk about that point because, after reading you for a while, I know neither of us will ever budge.
Your point about overruling the vote of the people makes total sense, but I’m not entirely sure it counts in this case. He didn’t turn around the decision and make same-sex marriages legal. He simply said denying them was unconstitutional. I think there’s a pretty significant difference between granting rights and taking them away.
Mindy: True, true. =)
Good point. But what the people wanted was for it to be illegal, which is what he reversed. We’ll see how this all turns out, as it definitely is not over!