Same-Sex Marriage

Lo and behold.
Read the below article published in The Economist 19-25 March 2005 edition:

Same-Sex Marriage
Simply put, he explained

Los Angeles
Has a California judge inadvertently given conservatives the chance to push through more laws banning gay marriage?

“Simply put’” said the judge, “same-sex marriage cannot be prohibited solely because California has always done so before.” Cue for statewide gay and lesbian jubilation, be it an impromptu rally in San Francisco’s Castro district or West Hollywood’s official city celebration, complete with a “wedding-cake and champagne reception”. In a 27-page decision Richard Kramer, a San Francisco Superior Court judge, had ruled on March 14th that California’s statutory ban on same-sex marriage was a violation of the civil rights guaranteed by its constitution.

Put equally simply, Gavin Newsom, who as Mayor of San Francisco authorised some 4,000 same-sex marriages just over a year ago, was right and the attorney-general of California, Bill Lockyer, defending state law was wrong. “No rational basis”, said Judge Kramer, “exists for limiting marriage in this state to opposite-sex partners”.

Indeed, to limit marriage in this was anti-homosexual discrimination akin to racial discrimination. In 1948, California’s Supreme Court ruled that the state’s ban on interracial marriage violate the equal protection clause of the United States constitution. Advocates of the racial ban had asserted that, because historically blacks had not been permitted to marry whites, the statute was justified. The court, Judge Karmer recalled, had rejected this argument: “Certainly the fact alone that the discrimination has been sanctioned by the state for many years does not supply such [constitutional] justification.” In other words, tradition is no excuse.

But what if homosexual couples are given “marriage-like” rights by California’s new domestic-partnership law proof, says Mr Lokyer, that a ban on gay marriage is not discrimination? Judge Kramer’s response, referring to a 1952 Supreme Court ruling on segregated schools, is dismissive: “The idea that marriage-like rights without marriage is adequate smacks of a concept long rejected by the courts-separate but equal.”

As to the argument put by conservative groups that the purpose of marriage is procreation and child-rearing by a man and a woman, the judge replies: “Once does not have to be married in order to procreate, nor does one have to procreate in order to be married.” Indeed, whereas heterosexual couples are unable or unwilling to have children are free to marry, “same-sex couples are singled out to be denied marriage.” The state can legitimately, for health reasons ban incestuous marriages, but the Judge, citing the 1948 state Supreme Court Judgment, said it cannot discriminate on the “arbitrary classifications of groups or races”.

Opponents of gay marriage have had a mixed reaction. They all claim to be horrified. The Reverend Louis Sheldon, founder of The Anaheim-based Traditional values coalition, called the ruling “yet another example of judicial tyranny”. But he went on to add that it makes “it clearer than ever that California needs a constitutional amendment to protect marriage as a union of one man and one woman”.

As this implies, conservatives are confident (and many gays fear) that every judicial decision in favor of same-sex marriage adds momentum to the campaign for constitutional bans on such marriages. Of the 17 states that have changed their constitutions to ban same-sex marriages, only Nebraska, Nevada, Alaska, and Hawaii did so before 2004. The other 13 did so in 2004-the year not just of the San Francisco change also of same-sex legalisation in Massachusetts.

Judge Kramer’s ruling will give ammunition to those pressing George Bush to renew last year’s electorally convenient drive to amend the Federal constitution. Evangelical Christians, who claim credit for the President’s re-election, have made it clear that their support For Social Security reform is contingent on Mr. Bush’s support for a constitutional amendment.

So what next? With the Judge’s ruling state for 60 days in order to allow for an appeal, the answer for California is yet more legal wrangling, first to the state court of appeal in San Francisco and then, probably next year, to the state Supreme Court-the very court which last August ruled that Mayor Newsom had exceeded his authority and the 4000 same-sex marriages were therefore invalid. The Supreme Court however, ruled out very narrow grounds that time, studiously avoiding the constitutional issues raised by Judge Kramer.

The longer term question is the political impact. Victories for same-sex marriage tend to produce a voter backlash: witness last year’s amendments to state constitutions. One effect of Judge Kramer’s ruling is to nullify not just that part of 1977 California Family Quote which defines marriage as between a man and a woman but also the state’s Proposition 22, approved 5 years ago by a margin of 61.4% to 38.6% and stating bluntly that “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognised in California”.

However, Judge Kramer cannot be dismissed as just another wacky San Francisco leftie with an activist agenda. This 57-year-old Roman Catholic is a registered Republican, appointed in 1996 by a Republican governor, Pete Wilson.

And the evidence from last year’s election is not quite as definitive as Conservatives’ claim. Exit polls showed that, although only 25% of Americans supported same-sex marriage, another 35% supported civil unions for homosexuals. Put another way, most Americans are relaxed about gay couples getting some form of legal pact. Perhaps that is why Mr. Bush is not rushing to push through a Federal ban.


*****

It IS allowed for gay to marry in America.
Finally, gay CAN celebrate their love in a legal union that binds them for life.

How about our beloved country then?
Are we going to deny this human rights?