We’re in the midst of autumn. It’s a beautiful time of the year. Birds are chirping, farmers across the
country are eagerly anticipating the year’s harvest, leaves are falling off trees
like nobody’s business (probably because they’re infested with ladybugs), and of course,
same-sex
marriage is under attack. Yep, you
just can’t call it autumn without an argument over gay marriage.
Alright, maybe making the connection between autumn and the
fact that California’s Proposition
8, which passed last November and effectively prohibits marriage between
same-sex couples in that state, is back in the news
again was a little tenuous. But hey, I’m
complicated, like opening a banana monkey-style.
Anyway, the debate whether to allow gay marriage in California seems to rage
on with no end. The federal district
court is set to hear a challenge to the controversial proposition this January,
but it appears that supporters of Prop 8 are trying to cut the courts off
before then by bring a motion to dismiss the case all together. What grounds are they employing you ask? Why the same ones that every person against
gay marriage has been using since this whole debate began: that there is no
violation of a person’s constitutional rights because marriage has
traditionally always been between a man and a woman. We’ve all heard it before, however this time
they’re also throwing in some case precedent from Minnesota that upholds the constitutionality
of Prop 8.
Now just to recap for you guys not following this mess of a
situation, California
itself has had a sorted history with same-sex marriage. First the mayor of San
Francisco allows it to be performed and recognized in San Francisco. Shortly afterward, the rest of California catches on to
him and shuts it down. Then the
California Supreme Court allows it, resulting in gay marriages across the yin
yang. Then Prop 8 cans it again and upon
doing so, has a lawsuit brought against it in federal court. Bringing us back to the seemingly
never-ending question, “Should gay marriage be allowed?”
And the answer is: Yes.
Why yes? Without
trying to get too tangled up in the politics of such an answer (which is near
impossible, I know) from a purely legal perspective it should be allowed simply
because of equal protection and the inalienable right of every citizen to
pursue life, liberty, and happiness as allotted by our country’s constitution. Right now, California is an odd state with three
classes of people when it comes to marriage.
Heterosexual people who are allowed to get married, homosexual people
whose marriages are recognized as legal since they became married while it was
still legal in that state, and finally homosexuals who cannot get married. I don’t know about you, but on its face that
seems like a violation of equal protection.
Three classes of people, really?
There aren’t supposed to be any classes since wear all supposed to be
equal right? Because, I mean, if these
classes are okay, why not just call them separate, but equal,
too?
I was trying to not get political, but like I said, near
impossible…
