Thursday, May 15, 2008

exciting times

This morning the California Supreme Court ruled that homosexual couples have a constitutional right to marry. And I find that very exciting.

In its ruling today, the California Supreme Court wrote that "In view of the substance and significance of the fundamental constitutional right to form a family relationship, the California constitution properly must be interpreted to guarantee this basic civil right to all Californians, whether gay or heterosexual, and to same-sex couples as well as to opposite-sex couples" (Source: The New York Times).

I think it's important to remember that allowing their basic civil rights in no way takes any civil rights away from anyone else.

I know there are many of you out there who completely disagree with me on this topic, but I'll stand my ground. No one deserves to have their rights stifled because of their race/ethnicity, socioeconomic status, or sexual orientation. Love is love, and people are people.


Carbonneau said...

Very interesting Molly. Can't say I agree. But good take on it. huh. makes one think.

Ashley C. said...

I was so excited when I heard this on the radio this morning. It completely boggles my mind that other states haven't done the same. How is it not unconstitutional to say that one group of consenting adults can marry, but another group can't? This is exactly where separation of church and state should take place. People shouldn't limit other peoples personal freedoms due to their own religious belief systems. Maybe in 30 years when gay couples have full rights, we'll look back on this the same way we look back on a time when interracial marriage was illegal and realize how ignorant our country has been.

Kaylynn said...

Topics like this get me so worked up I can't even post them. Even more worked up than the taxes:) I think by now you know my bottom dare people call themselves Christian and then treat people differently because they are not the same as they are? So not going to continue to type.....................

LJ said...

Right, but Molly, don't you know that California and everyone who lives in liberal California are going to hell anyhow? I of course don't mean that, but I know many do. ;)
I love you and I love the New York Times and I love that you cited your source. Hurray!

Ashley said...

I think it's best we don't discuss politics!

Amy Carter said...

It's not about politics... it's about equality. Hopefully this time the ruling will stand.

Molly said...

Kati--It definitely should be something people think about.

Ashley C.--I love your analogy with interracial marriages. Lost of people thought that was immoral so they tried to keep interracial couples from even existing. It's just common sense now that love doesn't limit itself based on your color...or religion...or nationality. But people still don't get that whether you agree with it or not, love doesn't limit itself based on sex either. These aren't horrible people. They are very good people who are being treated like bad people.

Kaylynn--You of all people know exactly how it feels to be treated as an equal when you were on the "inside" but then completely stepped all over when you were on the "outside." Sadly that's just not how Christ-like love should work.

LJ--Aren't we all just going to fall off into the ocean anyway? :)

Ashley--Agreed! Sadly, you and I should probably never discuss politics. Neither of us would end up happy.

Amy--I agree. It's not about religion. It's not about politics. It's about equal rights for all human beings, not just for those who share our beliefs. And I sure hope it stands this time, too.

Veronica Cleverly said...

I think I still maintain the award for the opinion that is most disputed but I agree with you. Homosexuals are people just like heterosexuals and are entitled to the same rights and liberties guaranteed to ALL PEOPLE. I do not agree with homosexuality and will never indulge in it but when you strip away everything that makes people different we are all the same. Plus, whether we agree or not based on personal preferences or religion we are not the ones who should judge. I think I should take my own advice sometimes!

Jenni said...

Molly, I love you, but I have to disagree with you. I have to side with the church on this one. I don't want to get into my opinions here for fear of offending. Check my blog.

LJ said...

Yo! Hi peeps, I posted this on Jenni's blog as well because I can not stop thinking about this. So I'm sort of team Carter, and sort of team Jespersen. Hopefully I can explain my thoughts clearly. I in no way mean to be offensive and apologize in advance if anyone reads my thoughts that way. Just my thoughts, and who am I any how? No better or worse than anyone else.

A same-sex marriage doesn't have the same history behind it as a heterosexual marriage. It's a new (as far as I can tell brand new, but let me know if this is a mistake) type of union. Take a car and a horse and buggy. Both have the same purpose, to get you from here to there, but again, not quite the same thing.

At the same time I understand that regardless of this issue, some people are very horribly and wrongfully prejudiced against gay people. I know that people believe allowing same sex marriages is the way to cure prejudice and resentment against the homo-sexual community, I don't know if I agree with that 100%.

I am all for gay rights, religious rights, etc. I think "civil union" is the most unromantic name I have ever heard of. Sort of like "common law marriage." As Gavin Newsom pointed out, you don't see heterosexual couples saying "Hey let's go get a civil union." They're really not the same, clearly. So what's my solution? I have no idea. I can tell you that if I were invited to a same-sex marriage I would absolutely attend, without reservation. I wish there were a different option presented that I could embrace whole-heartedly.

Ashley C. said...

I think it's also helpful to point out, for those who keep chastising the CA Supreme Court for "going against the views of the voters" and overturning the ban on gay marriage, that it took the US Supreme Court in 1967 in the case of Loving v. Virginia to overturn the ban in inter-racial marriage. Should that decision have been left to the voters? Should desegregation have been left up to local town votes? I think very few people today would admit that they think the Supreme Court should not have stepped in on that issue. This is exactly the role that the Supreme Court system was established for: to uphold the constitution and ensure the basic civil rights all Americans deserve. It is the highest court system made up of people who really understand the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and who can make decisions based on fact and not emotional religious beliefs. And yes, I'm totally aware that this is idealistic and that there are always political pressures and other factors guiding their decisions. I still, however, feel that it is a needed body of government.
And I'd also like to point out that marriage is not just a religious institution. All cultures throughout history have had form of "marriage' whether religious or not. To say that marriage is only a religious institution or right is to discredit all the marriages of people in this world who do not believe in religious organizations. If I choose to get married someday, it will not be within a religious context but it sure as hell will not be any less valid then those marry in a church.

LJ said...

I completely agree Ashley, marriage is also cultural and I think (hopefully) the Supreme Court is smarter and more well versed these Constitutional Rights than the average Joe. They are an important and necessary part of our government. Though I haven't looked into it, Gavin also pointed out that the judge who brought this to the Supreme Court was a conservative Republican Catholic.
I think it will pass in November.

Jenni said...

Thanks for sharing your opinions Molly - I commented back to you on my blog. I love discussing politics as friends because we can discuss and disagree, but still remain friends!

tim said...

Its not about religion but it is about morality. What you FEEL is right.
marriage is not a "basic civil right"
There are many groups that are not allowed to marry because "Marriage" as it is defined is not the word for what they want to do.
Fathers are not "allowed" to marry their children.
Brothers are not "allowed" to marry their sisters
Why? I think we all might have different personal reasons why we think those unions are just wrong no matter how much those people love each other. But most people feel those unions are wrong. What they are doing does not constitute a "marriage" its something else entirely. Accepting same sex unions as part of the definition of marriage is a fundamental change of the definition of the concept. Something very different than interracial marriage of times past.

"Love is love, and people are people." yes, but marriage is marriage. And that is defined as the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments.