Share
Matthew Hurt
This week, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled California’s Proposition 8 — which defined marriage in the state as between one man and one woman — was unconstitutional.
Quite frankly, I am not even going to bother with the whole “Is gay marriage right or wrong?” debate. This court case was not even about that. So let us set aside the moral versus immoral mess, be civil with each other and discuss what actually matters: the constitutionality within the decision.
Here is a little history on the same-sex marriage debate in California. In 2000, 61 percent of California voters voted in favor of Proposition 22, which prohibited same-sex marriage within the state.
In 2004, then-Mayor Gavin Newsom chose to ignore the state law, and he opened San Francisco City Hall to same-sex marriages. The state Supreme Court later ordered Newsom to stop and invalidated all the marriage licenses he issued.
In 2008, the California Supreme Court, in a 4-3 decision, ruled marriage is a fundamental right for all. That same year, 52 percent of California voters passed the well-known Proposition 8 at the ballot box. Prop. 8 was an amendment to California’s Constitution, defining marriage between one man and one woman.
The next year, the state Supreme Court upheld not only Prop. 8, but also supported the right for Californians to write their own state Constitution, since the document did not address same-sex marriage.
A federal court in 2010 struck down Prop. 8. This week, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld that decision to strike down Prop. 8, declaring it unconstitutional.
The real question here is if Prop. 8 is in fact unconstitutional. I would argue it is not.
Under the California Constitution, the people have the right to bring such ballot initiatives forward. They also have the right to write their own constitution and constitutional amendments.
Since the state constitution does not specifically define marriage, the people have the right to define it and not the courts. People are considered sovereign.
There are also two major issues with the 9th Circuit ruling.
First, the decision said “marriage” is merely a subjective term society gives to certain relationships, and anyone has a “right” to use the term to define their own relationship.
This creates a very slippery slope. Our government generally follows the notion that if something is a “right,” then it is also an entitlement (see Obamacare). So what if somebody can’t find a spouse? They have a “right” to marry, so should the government find a spouse for that person?
Of course not. I hate to belittle such a complex issue like this, but we have to remember how our government likes to operate. The wording is very important.
Second, the judges did not base their decision on solid grounds. Two of the 9th Circuit judges made their decisions believing Prop. 8 took away a right that already existed.
Let us be clear on this: the people of California cannot take away, say, the right to speak freely, which is already guaranteed by the state’s Constitution in Article 1, Section 2.
There was no guaranteed right of same-sex marriage that Prop. 8 had taken away. The only right that existed was to get a marriage license from Mayor Newsom in the San Francisco City Hall, which went against state law, so it wasn’t valid anyway.
The lone dissenter on the 9th Circuit pointed out that the federal courts should defer to state law if they are given no other option. There was no other option, because the only “option” was Mayor Newsom. Therefore, the judges saying that Prop. 8 “took away” something isn’t really true.
So, like I said, this decision is not about same-sex marriage being right or wrong. Instead, it is about whether the people voting for Prop. 8 is constitutional.
I believe same-sex marriage is a state issue, not a national one. I also believe it is not the courts, but the people, as a sovereign entity, who have the authority to make that decision.
I will respect any decision the voters of a particular state make on this issue. Just do not tell me the voters do not have the right choose because they do not sit on a bench and hold a gavel.
A version of this article appeared in the Feb 10 issue of the Collegiate Times.
Leave a comment 21 Comments Write a letter to the editor
All letters to the editor must include a name, e-mail, daytime phone number and affiliation to Virginia Tech. Affiliation includes: year and major for students; position and department for faculty and staff; current city for alumni and parents.
There is really no excuse for gays not being allowed to marry.
I could go on and on about how the "sanctity of marriage" is effectively nonexistent, but that would be too easy (hello Kim Kardashian)
I don't even get why this is a big political issue.
Let people live their lives.
And my views on Rick Santorum would get my comment edited by a moderator.
Reply to this Top
Val , there is an " excuse " for gays not being allowed to marry ! it's written in God's word in Romans 1 : 22 - 32.
I especially like where it says :" claiming to be wise , they became fools ( professing to be smart )they made simpletons of themselves." ZOOOOOOOOOOOOM in on verses 27 & 28 and yes you are right!! : let them live their lives and they wil go skipping down the aisle all the way to HELL .
Reply to this Top
Are there any excuses that don't involve fairy tales?
Top
Val , there is an " excuse " for gays not being allowed to marry ! it's written in God's word in Romans 1 : 22 - 32.
I especially like where it says :" claiming to be wise , they became fools ( professing to be smart )they made simpletons of themselves." ZOOOOOOOOOOOOM in on verses 27 & 28 and yes you are right!! : let them live their lives and they wil go skipping down the aisle all the way to HELL .
Reply to this Top
Selah I've read you're posts in many of these comment sections and you seem to have the laws of God pretty well understood. It's no small accomplishment to learn as much as you have but you seem to lack the truth of God. Remember that Christ reminds us that love is the most important aspect in walking with the Lord. When we focus too much on the law and not enough on love we become like the Pharisees scolding Christ for breaking the Sabbath to feed people. I know you don't want to be a Pharisee Selah, just remember that love and the law go hand in hand in serving God.
Top
It is important that this be corrected: Rick Santorum, a GOP nomination candidate, does NOT hate gays, nor is his typical rhetoric in any way hateful. He is simply stating his belief that the definition of homosexual relationships as "marriages" is "an outrage and amoral". He has repeatedly said that he does not hate gays, but the homosexual community has repeatedly attacked him. Look up his name in Google. Its no secret the definition of his name that appears was placed there by some in the homosexual community, who continue to pay for its placement despite Santorum's requests that Google take it down. His family has been harassed by gay-rights activists. It is they who hate him, not the other way around. Have a little backbone, understand your beliefs and defend them, but do not vilify those who do put themselves in the limelight by stating their opinions. Honestly think through your beliefs and claim as your own.
Reply to this Top
WRONG.
<i>When Jordan asked "Okay, without being too gory or graphic, so if somebody is homosexual, you would argue that they should not have sex?" Santorum's response concluded:[7]
"In every society, the definition of marriage has not ever to my knowledge included homosexuality. That's not to pick on homosexuality. It's not, you know, man on child, man on dog, or whatever the case may be. It is one thing. And when you destroy that you have a dramatic impact on the quality —"</i>
Reply to this Top
I think that some might believe that another individual stating that their union to someone they love is "an outrage and amoral" does represent hateful rhetoric.
Reply to this Top
Does that really justify the response though? Certainly there are people that thought his remarks were hateful and if that's the case, how did that make you feel? I bet it hurt and it's natural to want to lash out at those responsible. However, by cyberbullying Rick Santorum you become the thing you despise which is a dispenser of hate. You can't answer hate with more hate, you need love. If instead of Google bombing Rick Santorum, if the homosexual community had instead took that energy into befriending him and showing him the error in his thinking positively you would have gotten more done. At a minimum you would have had public support on your side rallying against his intolerance. Now because of the hateful response Santorum is a victim well on his way to getting the GOP nomination.
Top
IFC, you are wrong on Santorum. His name got messed with (hence the Google results) when he compared gay relationships to men having sex with dogs. He's also been anti-gay on repealing DADT, employment non-discrimination and said being gay is a morally wrong. That's as close as you can get to hate. Even if he says he doesn't hate gay people, since that specific language is no longer socially acceptable.
Reply to this Top
Matthew,
While I respect you taking the time to write this article, it is incorrect on many factual issues and filled with logical fallacies. I'm still reeling from the fact that you essentially say gay marriage shouldn't have national credence, since it could lead to the government finding a spouse for someone. That's specious on it's face. As for Prop 8 taking away an existing right, it did. The California Supreme Court declared Prop 22 invalid under the CA state constitution, and gay people were getting married in California - until Prop 8 specifically targeted them to take away that right.
And while you are correct that the people of California have the ability to vote on laws, any law passed, whether it is by people or by a branch of government must be lawful under the US Constitution. We live in a Constitutional Democracy and not a pure Democracy. The Supreme Court has affirmed many times (believe it is 15) that marriage is a fundamental right - from interracial marriage to overturning a law that prevented felons in prison from getting married.
To say gay marriage should be decided state by state means that interracial marriage, Jewish marriages, Mormon marriages, Asian marriages, etc. can be voted on state by state. Either a right exists or it doesn't. And if it does, the Equal Protection Clause guarantees that it applies for all citizens and minority rights aren't subject to the whim of the majority.
Reply to this Top
even you mention it - "...invalid under the CA state constitution" - keywords: state constitution. see the constitution is the guiding document whereby people can amend control to or from the government and society. so if the people decide upon an exception to the rule then it must be encoded into the constitution. therefore, it is possible that the right can exist yet can be limited if the constitution is amended by the people. let's not forget the 14th amendment IS an amendment itself and the supreme court is only an interpreter of the constitution not a writer. let me ask you this: an amendment is essentially a clause in a the constitution (a contract of governance by the people for the people) added at a later date to clarify a previous point or to insert something that society believes is necessarily fundamental to its governance or success; so then, is it possible for a court to declare an amendment to a contract unconstitutional? no, that's completely contradictory. so the only rational interpretation of prop 8 is that it is a specific address as to how a much broader set of clauses should be interpreted.
Reply to this Top
I am embarrassed to say that I graduated from VA Tech if they are now producing students who don't believe in equality for all. Shame on you for being so closed minded.
Reply to this Top
Who are you responding to? The author of this article -- in a terribly roundabout way -- supports rights for gays.
Reply to this Top
One does not support equal rights for all if one believes that a state has the right to discriminate against a minority just because the majority of its population wants to be discriminatory.
Top
Wait, I thought the purpose of education was to impart KNOWLEDGE to students, not a particular MORAL worldview?
Reply to this Top
<i>This creates a very slippery slope. Our government generally follows the notion that if something is a “right,” then it is also an entitlement (see Obamacare). So what if somebody can’t find a spouse? They have a “right” to marry, so should the government find a spouse for that person?</i>
Rights do not equal entitlement and the assertion of such is idiotic. There is no slippery slope unless you yourself are constructing one out of thin air. The right to free speech does not entitle anyone to a computer to post comments on the internet or money to buy up TV commercials to push a political agenda.
However, the US Constitution might give the people of California to govern themselves, but it does not give them to discriminate a minority population just because the majority want to. Sorry, dude, not the way it works.
Reply to this Top
Rudy,
Please read the last two paragraphs of the article, which I am assuming you have not yet read. You are not grasping the writer's conclusion at all.
Reply to this Top
Actually, I read both articles. Maybe you don't understand that one of them is pro-state rights that allow banning gay marriage, and the other one is pro-equal rights.
So which article were you referring to? I was replying to the anti-gay marriage one.
These last two paragraphs?
"I believe same-sex marriage is a state issue, not a national one. I also believe it is not the courts, but the people, as a sovereign entity, who have the authority to make that decision.
I will respect any decision the voters of a particular state make on this issue. Just do not tell me the voters do not have the right choose because they do not sit on a bench and hold a gavel."
The voters DO NOT have the right to discriminate against a minority group. That's not hard to understand. Maybe you ought to take your own advice.
Top
A) Marriage is a religious union that many decades ago began to recongnize significant benefits from the government for such a union (see taxes, health care, etc.)
B) Neither the state, nor the federal government can tell any branch of religion who it can "Marry," unless it want's to impinge on one of the founding principles of this country.
C) The real principle here is or should be whether a gay "union" should be recognized to allow these individuals the same benefits received through marriage.
To that I say, why not? Or, eliminate the financial benefits of marriage so that nobody cares either way and all (even single people) are treated equal.
Reply to this Top
Yo if you think that Santorum saying 'defining homosexual relationships as "marriages" is "an outrage and amoral"' doesn't automatically mean that he hates gays then lol forever
Reply to this Top