Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker ruled that Proposition 8- which legally defined marriage as between a man and a woman—violated the U.S. Constitution. You can read the ruling here and news coverage here and here.
Proposition 8 was approved nearly two years ago by voters in California who support marriage as the union between one man and one woman. The ruling comes as a major setback for traditional marriage advocates throughout the U.S. who looked to California as hope for traditional marriage protection.
The ruling was based on the opinion that Prop 8 violated the 14th amendment, which calls for equal protection and due process under the law.
While the federal Defense of Marriage Act does not recognize same-sex marriage, states have continually weighed in on the issue. North Carolina, however, has yet to offer voters the chance to vote on a constitutional amendment. For the fifth year in a row, bipartisan legislation was introduced in both chambers that would not only define marriage in North Carolina as the union between one man and one woman, but also afford North Carolinians the right to vote on their state’s definition of marriage. The legislation, however, has been blocked by opponents in committee.
Building from the momentum of the latest Prop 8 ruling, the National Organization for Marriage will be here in Raleigh for the One Man, One Woman rally this Tuesday, Aug 10. The rally hopes to highlight the urgent need for North Carolina voters to demand a NC marriage protection amendment.
While advocates for and against same-sex marriage do not know the future of marriage legislation, one thing is clear-the debate over same-sex marriage is in the news again.
(I don’t really have any opinion about whether or not gay people should or shouldn’t live together in perfect supportive harmony. That is not the point of my comments.)
The think that the real question that is not being asked is: “What is the point of ‘marriage'”. Why did the government get into the business of acknowledging and accomodating this practice to begin with?
Also, if society benefits from dedicated same-sex partners, then why does it NOT benefit from multiple-dedicated-partner relationships (polygamy)?
If ~75% of the registered voters legally appear at the polls and show a 52% majority for an opinion, why is it the right of one judge to overturn that? Why do we even stage costly referendum elections if the whim of one person can nullify the results? Have we become a country where the voice of the people is totally moot and the few in charge decide everything for us?
“Voice of the People” = “Tyranny of the majority” in this case. When the executive, the legislature, and the masses all conspire to expand the reach of government, I’m glad the judiciary at least sometimes exercises its spine (now if only they’d do the same for Obamacare). The issue was summed up nicely above: “Why did the government get into the business of acknowledging and accommodating this practice to begin with?”
Also, I’m wondering what this “urgent need” is.