… now on to the pro-marriage initiative battle in November.
Liberals/Democrats often compare the fight over the definition of marriage to the fight over inter-racial marriage. The analogy is ridiculous, and practically no one truly believes there’s really an analogy there; nevertheless, the California Supreme Court even made the analogy in their absurd ruling yesterday.
Barack Obama came out with one of his typically weaselly comments in response to the ruling, but it’s clear he supports the ruling. It’s pretty obvious the Democrats would come out fully in favor of re-defining marriage if the polls were on their side. Obama said:
“Barack Obama has always believed that same-sex couples should enjoy equal rights under the law, and he will continue to fight for civil unions as president. He respects the decision of the California Supreme Court, and continues to believe that states should make their own decisions when it comes to the issue of marriage.”
Reporters should ask Obama if he would have favored leaving it up to the states whether to allow or prohibit inter-racial marriage. If the issues are the same, then why should voters be allowed to decide the issue in any state?
Update: California Chief Justice Ronald George repeated his absurd reasoning in an interview with the Los Angeles Times –
He indicated he saw the fight for same-sex marriage as a civil rights case akin to the legal battle that ended laws banning interracial marriage. He noted that the California Supreme Court moved ahead of public sentiment 60 years ago when it became the first in the country to strike down the anti-miscegenation laws.
Again, there’s no analogy between race and sexual behavior. Certainly there is no comparison between the significance of gender versus race in marriage. Sex is at the core of what marriage is, while race plays no role at all. Ronald George knows this. His decision is based on emotional reaction, not reasoning, legal or otherwise.
Does the analogy with the civil rights movement really break down? I find your evidence (simply your statment that “sex is at the core of what marriage is”) to be very thin.
Because marriage (as defined by the state) confers special privileges upon a couple, it is certainly a matter of equal rights for all citizens in our democracy. Similar to the idea that any person should be able to vote, regardless of their race (voting being a right), this ruling provides that in the eyes of the state any couple can become married (in this case, it is immaterial what the state calls this union, insofar as they call it the same thing for everyone).
Now with marriage as far as the church is concerned — sex is an extremely important feature there. And since we have freedom of religion in this country, same sex couples can choose churches which allow same sex marriage, or no church at all. Heterosexual couples will remain unaffected by this ruling: they can still attend the same church and hold the same traditional values, passing these values on to their family.
Honestly, the union between two people as sanctioned by the state just shouldn’t be called marriage at all. For anyone. That would eliminate a lot of the controversy.
“I find your evidence (simply your statment [sic] that “sex is at the core of what marriage is”) to be very thin.”
Why? Who in the world has ever considered marriage to be about platonic relationships? Why deny the obvious?
“Because marriage (as defined by the state) confers special privileges upon a couple, it is certainly a matter of equal rights for all citizens in our democracy.”
But all citizens had the same rights before the CA Supreme Court’s action last week, subject to the same exact set of limitations.