It's 136 pages long, and I've read it almost three times front to back. I admit I'm obsessed...and completely flabbergasted by the results.
Allow me to summarize:
Opponents of Proposition 8 filed suit against the State of California, claiming that the proposition is unconstitutional because it violates the Due Process Clause ("No state shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law") and the Equal Protection Clause ("No state shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws") of the 14th Amendment. This unconstitutionality was successfully demonstrated by the use of 4 lay witnesses, 9 expert witnesses, and overwhelming scientific, political, and historical documentation.
The Plaintiffs also presented overwhelming evidence that allowing and performing same-sex marriages not only benefits the state of California financially, but by strengthening family units and providing for the physical and emotional security of children. They also proved that in no way does same-sex marriage harm opposite-sex marriage.
Defendants and proponents of Prop 8 failed to present any credible expert witnesses or provide any fact-based evidence to substantiate their claims that opposite-sex marriages are superior to same-sex marriages, that denial of same-sex marriage protects children, or that same-sex marriage has any harmful effect on opposite-sex marriages, on the State, or on society as a whole.
The court stated from precedent (Lawrence v Texas, 2003 and Everson v Board of Education of Ewing Township, 1947) that the government does not have any interest in enforcing private moral or religious beliefs without a specific secular purpose. Defendants failed to build a credible case that Prop 8 served any government interest whatsoever.
To be frank, it was a landslide case and the court had no choice but to pronounce Proposition 8 unconstitutional. To say the least, this court ruling forms an extremely powerful precedent for any future state or federal lawsuits concerning the denial of marriage rights to same-sex couples.
In fact, this court decision is so pivotal that it changes the entire debate surrounding same-sex marriage. Those who oppose gay marriage need to muster up some form of verifiable data to back up their claims that gay marriage will destroy the institution of marriage or the family or anything besides the white, hetero-patriarchal, Christian imperialism that fuels every inequality and social injustice in this country.
With the decision of the court, the gay marriage debate no longer centers around whether or not to extend marriage rights and privileges to same-sex couples, but rather how to extend those rights and privileges. Before any sweeping legislation can take effect, the Supreme Court will have to rule that The Defense of Marriage Act of 1996 (which states that only marriage between one man and one woman is recognized by the federal government) is unconstitutional.
From what I've seen there are two prominent proposals for extending rights to same-sex couples:
The first proposal is to completely remove the word "marriage" from legal and government language and replace it with "civil unions". The government would extend equal rights and privileges to anyone in the "civil union" category; whether same-sex couple, opposite-sex couple, or beneficiary couple (there is a movement to extend legal benefits/rights to those not in a sexual relationship). The word "marriage" would be reserved for religious ceremonies.
The second option is for federal law to mandate all states to recognize and perform same-sex marriages. This option also includes a provision that gives religious organizations the right to refuse to "sanctify" such marriages in their houses of worship. This type of provision works to preserve religious freedom as well as to emphasize the separation of church and state.
Hey, not bad. I just summarized 136 pages in a few paragraphs.
Some important tangents:
-The lawyers defending Prop 8 gave a presentation of their case at BYU in September (after the case had been ruled on by the court).
- This is what BYU's Daily Universe (the student-run newspaper) had to say about the presentation: http://universe.byu.edu/node/10561
- This blogger gave a more fact-based analysis of the presentation: http://www.reddit.com/tb/dcykg "Chuck Cooper failed miserably in attempting to defend Prop 8 to possibly the friendliest crowd he will even encounter. The problem centers on the fact that he has absolutely no proof that state-recognized homosexual marriages would harm the institution of heterosexual marriage in any way whatsoever."
-I'm also aware of people trying to argue that if gay marriage laws pass then religious freedom will be compromised. People are afraid of having to perform gay marriages in their temples, churches, etc. When I mention to folks that the gay marriage laws that have been passed in this country have provided religious organizations the freedom to opt out of performing same-sex marriages, they answer me with something like "gay activists won't stop until they've pushed their way into our temples" or "well the Catholic Church was forced to allow gays into their adoption programs" etc.
- First of all, I can't imagine any gay ex-Mormon pining for temple entrance. Gay members leave the LDS Church for a reason, mostly because of the oppression they feel; I don't think it's realistic to fear ex-Mormons spending all that money, time, and energy attempting to make an extremely dogmatic, oppressive, and hierarchical religion change it's temple ceremonies to allow gays to participate. Even if a same-sex couple did sue a Church for not performing their marriage ceremony, I doubt they would win. IE: separation of church and state, religious freedom, etc.
- Second, the LDS Church was able to uphold its racist policies that didn't allow Black members to participate in temple ordinances and refusing Black men the priesthood several years after Civil Rights legislation was passed in the 1960s.
- And finally, The Catholic Church was required to coordinate adoptions for same-sex couples in the state of Massachusetts because the Catholic adoption agency was partly funded by the government. Economically-independent religious organizations, like the LDS Church would still be able to refuse their services to same-sex couples.
Continued debate with old arguments over details that have already been resolved, reminds me of one of my favorite movies, Surf Ninjas.
A ninja-soldier gets thrown down a mile-long flight of stairs during a battle and when he finally climbs
back to the top of the mountain to continue fighting, a soldier from the other side yells:
"News Flash: your side lost!"
The man stops 3 stairs from the top of his assent, turns around and throws himself back down the steps.
I'm just saying that the old worn out arguments are no longer valid. If you've got nothing new to add to the changing debate, you might as well throw yourself down a figurative mile-long flight of stairs, because the old debate is over.
Finally, time to move on . . .
No comments:
Post a Comment