Opinion Based Analysis of the Challenges of the Constitutionality of Proposition 8
This article, Consequences of Gay Marriages Already Here redefines the definition of traditional marriage. Charles LiMandri, author, is general counsel for the National Organization for Marriage – California. Efforts to legalize gay marriage in California have given gay couples the highest protection under the law where any actions against such marriages can automatically be termed as discrimination or infringements of civil rights. Gay rights have already taken precedent over religious rights as seen in New Jersey last year when a UnitedMethodistChurch was selected as a place for a double lesbian wedding. The MethodistChurch stated that it reserved the right to use the church for activities in keeping with its religious beliefs. When the lesbian couples complained to the state of New Jersey, their rights were honoured over the rights of the church.
In connection with Consequences of Gay Marriages Already Here the article it’s About Treating Every Couple the same is about expressing the equal right of gay couples to those of bi-gendered couples with respect to marriage rights. Harry Mathis, author, is a retired Navy captain and former nuclear submarine commander. He and his lovely wife Mary have lived in the San Diego area for nearly 38 years. He goes beyond the political expressions and legislative rights of gay couples and expresses personal views from a father and mother’s perspective of the struggles as well as happy times associated with having a family member, especially a daughter who has chosen to have a long-term gay relationship that has led to a gay marriage. He further proposes that support of ‘Proposition 8’ would deny fundamental basic human rights to his daughter and deny her happiness.
Mathis states that his daughter is an ordinary person with a 16 year old relationship with a lesbian partner who married three years ago in San Francisco and Proposition 8 would take away her fundamental rights that have already been given to her. His daughter is very happy and stable, pays taxes, goes to work and takes care of two beautiful grandchildren with her gay partner of marriage. Though he and his wife have been married in a common traditional marriage of man and lady, they make no distinction between the love they show for their gay daughter and their daughter that is in a tradition marriage with a male husband. Mathis further expresses his feelings that every couple shall be treated the same under the eyes of the law without the application of discrimination applied due to sexual gender based decisions. He is aware of the frustration his daughter has faced through scrutinization over the years and urges people to vote against Proposition 8 to afford gay couples the same rights as other couples.
Proof that gay rights are being made public but being portrayed in the school systems as well. Just a week ago, California school aged children were privy to their teacher being married to her lesbian partner while on a school field trip. Connecticut Supreme Court legalized gay marriage around the same time hence holding influence on California’s decisions. Though there is great activism towards gay marriage legislation, not all people are in agreeance In Massachusetts, a parent of a child learned that a teacher had been reading a story of two ‘princes marrying, kissing and becoming two Kings’. Upon hearing this, the parent opposed the reading of the material to the child. The parents’ filed suit yet, the courts ruled that parents have no right to be consulted, no right to opt out, and no voice in opposing school curriculum that introduces gay marriage in a state where it is legal.
Recent Case Law Defending Gay Rights to Marriage
“January 11, 2010, is the start date that U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker has chosen for a federal lawsuit that challenges California's gay marriage ban Proposition 8, saying that the case in question was "a matter of huge importance for the state" and recognizing that a case dealing with gay marriage had "broader interests" that went beyond state legislation alone.”. Plaintiffs to the case are claiming that Proposition 8’s passing is unconstitutional to the fundamental rights of gay marriages. “A federal challenge to Proposition 8 risks a lot, and if the conservative Supreme Court were to find in favour of upholding Proposition 8, the damage to the gay rights movement could be substantial (if there is a legitimate interest substantiated by the Supreme Court, not only gay marriage but gay adoption and other such rights”. The case
Marriage Cases already has established that language inserted into the California Constitution by Proposition 8 discriminates against same-sex couples and equal protection under the law. In contrast, Iowa Supreme Court, in affirming the constitutional right of gays and lesbians to marry, recently recognized the importance of this promise of equality, stating: “If gay and lesbian people must submit to different treatment without an exceedingly persuasive justification, they are deprived of the benefits of the principle of equal protection upon which the rule of law is founded.”
Opinion and Conclusion Based Analysis
It is in my opinion that gay rights with regards to civil unions and marriages should be strictly adhered to based on constitutionality rights as afforded by the United States Amendments especially the Bill of Rights freedom of expression and anti-discrimination laws. The government is attempting to deny a person with discretion of his/her inalienable rights to free will and free choice. It is the same as telling a person because they are of a certain colour they cannot sit on a bus or they are not credible to fulfill a role in a workplace environment. That is pure discrimination and that goes way back to the Civil Rights that were fought for years by people such as Martin Luther King and other political activists. To deny people these rights would seem to be undoing these advances that our country has made. What about the progress that Representative Teddy Kennedy has made throughout the years in efforts for the working classes of America to ensure that they are treated fairly? This is of the same nature! Gays are put into a certain stereotype and they should not be. We need to undo that stereotype and allow them to have same rights to marriage just as others do. The main reasons they are not afforded these same rights are because of traditional aspects to civil union and marriages and laws permitting only the union of man and woman. This goes back to the Roman Catholic Church. This is laid down in legislation through statute and case law and it is very difficult to overturn this because of political influence over government. Some states are more liberal in allowing the rights that gays deserve but some are not. It is not surprising that the Southern states have not made advances towards allowing the gay marriages because they tend to express more traditional views toward subjects as such. It is again my opinion that the gay community needs to continue to be very proactive to enforce their rights through marches and campaigns to enforce their rights. It is the only way that they will ever see proper justice afforded to them. This may take decades to see justice throughout all of the United States but again Rome was not built in a day and anything worth fighting for is not achieved with minimal effort, now is it?
erat, sed diam voluptua.
Comments
Nice article, however the case in NJ regarding the Methodist CChurch is incorrect/misrepresentedstate . The couple wished to use a paublic pavillion that was supported by taxpayers money in a shore town that is methodist owned. The church was given the opportunity to allow the coupkle to have their ceremony OR clain it as private property and lose funding from the state. Thye chose the money. Just saying.
Thanks for taking time to write your very coherent article. It shows sensitivity to a subject that I wholly lack. I am absolutely disgusted with bible thumping, homophobic obsessed religion. Those bastards have imposed a real barrier into our private life, via a constitutional amendment. I will be absolutely delighted to watch prop 8 stuffed up their asses, hard and fast, in our federal court challenge. I'm not a legal expert, but I can't imagine one legitimate state interest that would need to be discovered by the SCOTUS to uphold prop 8. The state of California can't either!
I would also like to point out that the children who went to their teachers wedding were not forced to and it was not a school sponsored field trip. The STUDENTS PARENTS WANTED THEM TO GO. This was an unofficial field trip that was organized by the parents.
Does the wishes of the greater majority matter? The greater majority believes that homosexuality is immoral, that abortion is murder, and that there is a difference between a civil union and a marriage, defined as one man and one woman. FlexSF, you call people who have moral standards bastards? Seems that equal rights is not the issue here, but the promotion of your brand of sex. Nice choice of words, "up their ass." You show a mean-spirited bitterness, but also a callous disregard for other peoples faith and feelings, something you evidently don't like when directed at you. I find that amazing, and rather queer. How do you like that? Keep it behind closed doors, and not in front of my grand kids. If I can choose to live and let live why can't you?
I so agree...thanks for your words, Ken!
Ken, I know that the majority of the US doesn't support marriage equality or prolife; however, there was a time when the majority of people didn't support womens right to vote, mixed marriage, or the abolishment of slavery.I pray as a Christian you can find a way to come to terms with your misplaced aggression towards a discriminated minority. God doesn't make mistakes, we are all God's children and we should embrace our fellow brothers and sisters.
The situation in NJ was not about a church, it was about a boardwalk pavilion owned by a church. The church allowed the pavilion to be used by the public and got significant tax benefits in return. It was available to everyone of every faith or of no faith so long as the people payed the fee. They allowed weddings, concerts and various other performances to take place there. It wasn't until the two women asked to have their wedding there that the church decided to pull the "religious beliefs" card and deny them access. This case has nothing to do with same-sex marriage, but with anti-discrimination laws, which they clearly violated. If they want to accept tax dollars, including money from LGBT citizens, for having a property open to the public, then they cannot turn and use their "religious beliefs" to deny certain individuals or groups access to that property. Sadly the anti-gays keep citing this and similar cases because they falsely think they should be able to do so.
I'm leaving America and going somewhere where the majority of people know how to mind their own damn business and aren't living embodiments of Desperate Housewives.
MARRIAGE IS FOR ALL AMERICANS.
The American Psychiatric Association has confirmed that sexual orientation is natural, biologically induced, morally neutral, immutable, neither contagious nor learned and has no relation to an individual’s ability to form deep and lasting relationships, to parent children, to work or to contribute to society.
The American Psychological Association states that homosexuality and homosexual relationships are normal.
The American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Psychological Association and the American Psychiatric Association have all endorsed civil marriage for same-sex couples because marriage strengthens the mental and physical health and the longevity of couples, and provides greater legal and financial security for children, parents and seniors.
When America’s premier child and mental health associations and their expert panels endorse marriage equality, there is thus no ethical reason to discriminate against gay people and their childre
Kudos to New England, Iowa and the Episcopal Church for supporting marriage.
Couples are coming to CT to wed this summer from all around the country, and in many cases they are bringing their families and friends along to celebrate with them.
And many of the couples have been together for 38, 45, and 46 years! Congrats to all. And I officiated for two attorneys from New Orleans who have been together for over 22 years. Congrats guys!
Joe Mustich, Justice of the Peace,
Washington, Connecticut, USA
And marriage is firstly a civil matter, as marriage licenses are issued by town halls, not church halls, or mosques or temples in America.
And to the marriage foes and sexually phobic please find something else to do with your time because life's just to short. Find love.
To FlexSF: I'm hetero (not by choice)but I still would give you a good kiss (on the cheek) for your attitude.
The Roman Catholic Church for centuries has been torturing and burning people at the stake for the "crime" of homosexuality, and now they fear their hatred will not be protected anymore.
By the way the case in Mass was also misrepresented, just like the one in N.J.
Proof of human rights violations against hetero married couples:
1. the gay couple will never have to agonize over family planning, or the side effects of drugs.
2. the gay couple will never have to agonize over sterilization
3. the gay couple will never have to agonize over abortion
4. the gay couple will never have to have an untimely birth, and when they want one, there would be money in the house.
5. the gay couple, through adoption, has control of choice in: sex selection, race, appearance, motor, psych and mental skills. They are not obligated to choose a disabled child because they do not birth any.
6. the gay couple will be less likely to have to experience debt, as the burden of educating and raising children, while keeping them safe and healthy.
The agony that homosexuals have to deal with regarding their orientation is no more nor no less than the agonies hetero married couples must face in life. Gays want all the joys, none of the sorrow: heteros always will have B
heteros always will have BOTH. You acll that fair? In fact it is a human rights violation, HAVING NOTHING TO DO W/RELIGION. Oh, and dare I ask if it is fair for the gay married woman to have the magic right to look her same lovely self after getting a child in comparison to the trainwreck heteros wives look like after going through the PAINS of birth, which the oh so privileged and newly endowed gay married woman does not have to endure. Nor the fact that she might have to have her belly opened, uterus exposed, for a child to come out, and pay $12G for that RIGHT? Wow, what a privilege! Which hetero married woman WOULDN'T give her right ovary to have a painless birth, look like a princess immediately afterward, cost nothing, and can even take part in CHOOSING a perfectly cute, nondisabled, right sexed, perfectly TIMED baaaaaby? Only the elite of the elite! The gay married class, who simply must regard that stupid breeder class of getting nothing right!
Why not let gays be married. Aren't they allowed to miserable too?
Dear Readers of Proposition 81:
I have just had the chance to read over my comments to this article tonight as of September 28, 2009 and your comments are certainly astonishing and I do gratefully appreciate all of your professional opinions.
As always, the purpose of the media is to inform and add minor personal opinion and cite law if possible in my case. I always welcome great feedback and try not to choose sides.
Sometimes, you can see what side I lean towards but I never expressly devulge that information for that is not my job.
Great posts!!
Nicole
UK law graduate
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!