If you get Google alerts or some similar service, you already know that the California Supreme Court has issued a ruling recognizing a right to marriage for same-sex couples. From the San Diego Union-Tribune:
The state Supreme Court struck down California’s marriage law banning same sex couples from getting married in a historic decision Thursday that declared the law unconstitutional discrimination.
The decision will surely touch off an impassioned political fight.
The 4-3 opinion is the high court’s most important civil rights decision in more than a decade, and it is an epic legal victory for same-sex marriage advocates. California is now the second state in the nation to allow gays and lesbians to be legally married.
According to the opinion, “we determine that the language of section 300 limiting the designation of marriage to a union ‘between a man and a woman’ is unconstitutional and must be stricken from the statute, and that the remaining statutory language must be understood as making the designation of marriage available both to opposite-sex and same-sex couples.”
Email alerts reactions from various groups range from “a full win” by gay groups to “a disregard of California voters” from conservative groups. The November ballot initiative will now be considered an effort to overturn this ruling.
Fallout and reactions:
Presidential candidates reactions
New York Times
Schwarzennegger
Associated Press
We’re sort of getting nowhere, it seems to me, Michael and Timothy, but I’ll sum up a few things and probably leave it at that. I promise I will check back to read your responses, and perhaps I’ll post a follow-up, but “diminishing returns” is beginning to set in, it seems to me. I don’t mind healthy debate, and you don’t seem to either, and I’m glad that I could set the record straight on several things with each of you, so that you, Timothy, don’t think I believe that gays want to marry just for benefits (even though, as I say, that’s the PR that has come across to me pretty strongly, I know better), and that you, Michael, understand that I do believe it stinks that you’ve gotten some mighty shabby treatment by some folks who call themselves Christians. You are passionate men about the things you believe, and I am as well, and the fact that we believe some opposing things puts us into these kinds of discussions. I will say that this discussion has convinced me, more than ever, that the best course is for government to get out of the marriage business altogether, but even that’s not controversial for me, since I think we ought to reduce government involvement in everything by about 90%, and then we’ll be somewhere in the ballpark of the founders’ original intent.
This won’t surprise either of you, of course, but I ground my belief in the one-man, one-woman definition of marriage, not in some preconceived prejudice, bigotry, or “homophobia” (whatever that is), but rather on the creation plan of God, on Christ’s words regarding a “man leaving his father and mother, and cleaving to his wife”, on Paul’s lifting up the idea of being the “husband of one wife” as the ideal, etc. Full disclosure: I believe that Romans 1 and other Scripture condemns any sex outside of that one-man, one-woman marriage relationship as sinful. I can say that without prejudice, recognizing that we are all sinners (the author of that passage called himself the “chief of sinners”), and my name is right on that list. I don’t lift myself up as any better than you guys; that’s immaterial before God’s perfect holiness anyway, so it’s a game we humans play to our own detriment. But I do believe that the Bible defines marriage pretty clearly; obviously, MIchael, you disagree. I just want you to know that I ground my beliefs in my understanding of the Bible, and not on any kind of prejudice that flows from some other source, and as I argued in one post, there have been parts of the whole gay rights movement with which I have agreed; long before my conservative brethren were in favor of “don’t ask, don’t tell”, I was with Bill Clinton on it (about the only thing I was with Bill Clinton on..).
I also believe that stable marriages contribute to the betterment of society–which is the argument for whatever government benefits accrue to the married. I could do without them…as I said, that’s not a factor in my own marriage. One could argue–I’m sure you guys would–that stable “gay marriages” could have the same effect; I wouldn’t agree, but I’d likely agree at the least that stable commitments among people beats the heck out of one-night stands, you know?
Further, every major faith seems to concur with this one-man/one-woman definition (and yes, I know, some “Christian” groups were on you guys’ side; I’ll leave my assessment of those groups out of this post, for the purpose of being charitable. Suffice it to say that their beliefs about more fundamental things than “gay marriage” bear little resemblance to those of most evangelicals.). No, that fact alone doesn’t mean “gay marriage” is wrong, I realize, but there is an old adage: “before you knock down a fence, find out why it was put there in the first place”. I believe that there are some good reasons to maintain the traditional definition of marriage, while at the same time believing that legitimate rights ought not be denied to gay folks.
Timothy, on the “redefinition” issue, we’ll have to agree to disagree; you haven’t convinced me, nor I you. Same on the “equal rights” thing; I don’t believe your example meets the criterion I laid out, not by a long shot; sorry. A “strong case” in the event of a family’s desire to contest the will just doesn’t come up to one of the standards I was proposing. The couple could still marry; the state could not force a divorce once the situation was found out; perhaps you could make the case that the third criterion is met by your scenario, but I don’t think so, and I’m not trying to change the rules or something; I honestly don’t think it fits at all. Any man and woman can marry (OK, not related by blood, etc.); the state can’t arbitrarily dissolve a marriage in the event a sexual orientation is found out; I don’t believe that a state would take away an inheritance based on your criterion, though I can believe a family might try to argue that point, but if the two lived together agreeably and consensually, it’s hard for me to see real grounds.
OK, that’s enough blathering. I admire your tenacity even as I disagree with your reasoning, and though it ought not have to be said, unfortunately it does: I respect you each as men created in the image of God.
And I’d buy you lunch if I knew where you lived…
Byron,
I believe that you believe that you are not motivated by prejudice or animus. I believe that you believe that your objections are based purely in your understanding of scripture.
But I also think that perhaps you have never seriously questioned whether this is true. I think that perhaps there was a little indignation over the homosexuals redifining your precious institution (just another evil thing those homosexuals have done).
Maybe in some future musings you might ask yourself if your objections to others’ sins includes the necessity to restrict sinners’ rights under law. Perhaps it might… but I think that you may find otherwise. I believe that a seed has been planted and that in time you will find that your views are not as clear as perhaps you think them to be at this time (I am an optimist).
I completely disagree with the theological underpinnings of your direction on sexual orientation. I think that this has been one of the most understood and misinterpreted areas of scripture and that it is an evidence of the moving of the Holy Spirit that so many people are now beginning to question these small handful of ambiguos passages and finding that the traditional understanding doesn’t hold up when we look at the full message of the Gospel. (hint, hint, your New Testament objections rely on a man who was more in favor of celibacy than of “husband of one wife”. He grudgingly allowed marriage for those who burned with lust but thought that it distracted from the immediate return of Christ.)
But that’s MY belief and while I wish you shared it, I have no more right to impose my faith on you than you do on me. So you are certainly entitled to your understanding and ultimately we don’t answer to each other.
I respect that you recognize that social coupling of gay persons is better for society than single gay persons. Some folks are so “hatin’ teh gay” that they would be opposed to gay ice cream if they thought such a thing existed. Heck, we’ll take all the support we can get on issues of equality… even if it’s going to take a while longer to get you to champion full equality under the law
(Just one caution for future discussions with gays… we don’t find support of “Don’t Ask – Don’t Tell” to be admirable. We think it’s based on deceipt and lying. Further, ask most servicemen and they’ll tell you that they’ve served with gay people and had no problems. And if you want to know how obsolete and silly this policy is, try and find ANYONE of influence who will defend it on its terms.)
I’m willing to agree to disagree to whether allowing same-sex couples changes an integral definition of marriage. But I hope that you walk away from our discussion no longer believing that gay people were granted “the special right to redefine the institution of marriage according to their desires”. Even if the definition has in some way changed, it’s not that gay people been granted power to change it but the conclusion of a rather conservative court comprised of Republicans (6 of the 7) is that the state cannot grant recognition to heterosexuals and straight couples that they do not grant to homosexuals and gay couples.
Perhaps the idea of separating church marriage and civil recognition is not a bad one. We suffer from using the same word for two separate concepts enough as it is. We all know divorced and remarried Catholics who live with a state that recognizes their divorce and remarriage and a church that recognizes either.
But unless and until they are severed, we will continue to have problems in areas where gay couples are denied civil protections and equality. Most decent people, yourself included, find it inconsistent with their ideas of right and wrong to deny gay people the tools they need to function in their lives and relationships. Yet many also balk at allowing gays to marry. Friction is going to exist.
Ironically, if states granted unions and churches granted marriage, there would be legal gay marriages in every state of the union. There are probably dozens of churches within 15 miles of where I sit right now that perform gay marriages and at least one or two within 15 miles of you.
In any case, I agree that we’ve each gotten our opinions out there. And while we’ve probably not swayed each other much, I hope that we can see each other more clearly as brothers and neighbors instead of “them”. And that’s always worth a little debate.
God bless.
This is a momentous day for civil rights now that gay marriage is legal in california
http://www.queersunited.blogspot.com
Byron and Timothy,
I enjoyed your exchange and how both of you concluded. Thank you.
Yes, Timothy, thanks. And the lunch offer stands…
There seems to be a bit of confusion about marriage. The issue is about Civil marriages not religious ones. Civil marriages are state recognized marriages that confer a variety of rights, privileges, and responsibilities on the participants. Further, there seems to be some assumption that civil marriages are a by-product of religious marriages and that the concept of marriage is a religious one. This is incorrect, if anything it is historically more likely that religious marriages came from the concept of civil marriages.
So far in all of the complaints about this court ruling are about irrelevant issues (“is it a redefinition”) or foolish arguments (“gay men can marry women so the law is fair”). No on has provided any evidence of any substantive harm that allowing gays to marry would cause. The gays have shown numerous ways that denying them the rights have marriage have hurt them.
So for those of you so upset about this ruling, consider this:
You fight so vehemently to deny an entire class of people the right of marriage, uncaring how it may hurt them, yet giving them that right would have no significant effect on you (let alone hurt you), what do you think that says about the type of person you are?