Prop. 8

The overturning of California's Prop. 8 by Judge Walker of the Federal District Court in San Francisco was national news today. This is by no means a final decision on the matter, but it is a big deal because it sets up an almost certain Supreme Court case (after an irrelevant stint in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals). Because Judge Walker used the US Constitution as the basis for his ruling, rather than the state constitution of California, if the Supreme Court takes up the case, their ruling will apply to every state. There are hurdles for both sides when it gets there but that's for another post.

I do not understand the argument or really the motivation of the intelligent, informed people who are against same-sex marriage. Marriage is a word. Some say it is a right. However, if it is a right then it is a very different sort of right than say the right to free speech or due process. Whereas the latter two are protected by the Constitution because they are freedoms that should not be impinged, marriage is just a legal action that two people take to change their status from two entities to one in the eyes of the government. The institution of marriage exists as a convenience to those pairs of people (historically a man and a woman) who chose to spend their lives together.

A major part of the defense's case for Prop. 8 was trying to establish as fact that heterosexual marriage is a inalienable aspect of human culture, that was created as a result of the human need to procreate. Saying that procreation is the source of our marital traditions is a perfectly sound but completely invalid point. A tribe of humans that has a familial structure generally works better than one where everyone sleeps around and no one takes responsibility of the resulting children. There are 1-2 commandment(s) on the subject for a reason. However, when John and Jane, the sweet octogenarian couple who grew attached after the deaths of their spouses, decide to move-in together, I'd like to hear you tell them they can't get married unless they intend to have children. I'll even go a step further: in a world pressed for space and resources, do we care if fewer children are born and more are adopted?

Relatedly, another very weak point in the defense of Prop. 8 was that having gay or lesbian parents would be detrimental to children. Same-sex parents have been shown in several studies to be just as good or slightly better at producing successful and well-adjusted kids.

Essentially, it seems that the opponents of same-sex marriage are trying to take away an institution they enjoy from those people who they believe are living a morally reprehensible lifestyle. Do most Christians think that a practicing Hindu will not go to heaven? Yes (That's Commandment #1, after all). Does that mean that because a majority of Americans disapprove of that lifestyle, they shouldn't be allowed to own a home? No, of course not. That is exactly opposite of how this country was designed to work.