LIFE,
The Declaration of Independence of the
The Declaration of Independence is clear in its
resolve: “We hold these truths to be
self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their
Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life,
Group B argues that this statement is fundamental to our Democracy and yet Group A would deny equal rights to marriage to Group B, limiting their pursuit of happiness. Group B may marry, yes, but only to the “correct” gender as designated by Group A: a man may marry a woman only, and a woman may marry a man only. That members of Group B by their very nature usually love only among their own gender does not matter.
Group B believes that love is more important to marriage than gender. Group A emphatically disagrees. Furthermore, that many marriages among Group A have no foundation at all in love is apparent and, seemingly, does not meet with general disapproval: criminals, riffraff, and even terrorists may marry, so long as they marry someone from the opposite gender.
The Pursuit of Happiness may take many forms. Marriage, with or without love is one of the most important and widespread of those pursuits.
My brother Clay once told me, when I presented him with these arguments about Equal Rights, “But Bob, we do have the same rights. You can’t marry a man, and I can’t marry a man.” He didn’t even find this laughable. Of course, with his already having married three different women, having divorced twice, his heterosexual inclinations were apparent. I guess it is not possible for some people, even with brotherly love and long-term familiarity, to understand that not all people have the same physical attractions and, indeed, love.
Such a narrow view of an issue was also apparent in the
ruling by the
Such single-minded judicial considerations have been applied to same-gender court cases. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_New_York where the New York Court of Appeals overturned, through a narrow consideration of the constitution of that state, the decision of the trial judge, J. Doris Ling-Cohan, in Hernandez v. Robles (NY, February, 2005) Justice J. Doris Ling-Cohan provides a very solid history of all the cases leading up to that moment regarding interracial marriage and same-gender marriage, ultimately concluding that allowing same-gender marriage was in the best interests of the individuals, their children, and the state of New York. Below are some of the statements included in Judge Ling-Cohan’s opinion:
http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2005/2005_25057.htm.
“Both the New York Court of Appeals and the United States Supreme Court have made clear that the State may not deny rights to a group of people based on no more than traditional attitudes or disapproval of that group…
…although "for centuries there have been powerful voices to condemn homosexual conduct as immoral," such disapproval gives rise to "no legitimate state interest" in criminalizing same-sex intimate relations…
It is clear that moral disapproval of same-sex couples or of individual homosexuals is not a legitimate state purpose or a rational reason for depriving plaintiffs of their right to choose their spouses…
"Disapproval by a majority of the populace… may not substitute for the required demonstration of a valid basis for intrusion by the State in an area of important personal decision protected under the right of privacy…"
Permitting plaintiffs to marry would confer innumerable tangible and intangible benefits for them and their children while causing harm to no one…
While eloquently praising the indisputably central role that marriage plays in human life, neither defendant nor amici indicate how that role would be diminished by allowing same-sex couples to marry, nor how the marriages of opposite-sex couples will be adversely affected by allowing same-sex couples to marry. As one court concluded in recently recognizing a right to marriage for same-sex couples under the Washington Constitution:
"Some declaim that the institutions of marriage and family are weak these days and, in fact, stand threatened. Any trial court judge who regularly hears divorce, child abuse and domestic violence cases deeply shares this concern. It is not difficult, however, to identify both the causes of the present situation and the primary future threat. They come from inside the institution, not outside of it. Not to be too harsh, but they are a shortage of commitment and an excess of selfishness. Before the Court stand eight couples who credibly represent that they are ready and willing to make the right kind of commitment to partner and family for the right kinds of reasons. All they ask is for the state to make them able…”
However, the reality is that significant numbers of couples in New York have formed same-sex families, and numerous couples will continue to do so, whether they are allowed to marry or not. Neither defendant nor amici contend otherwise. It would be "irrational and perverse" (Carey v Population Servs. Intl., 431 US 678, 715 [1977] [Stevens, J., concurring]) to deny such New York resident couples and their children the protections of marriage that they would enjoy under the laws of New York, on the ground that they will not have those protections under the laws of other states, or under those of the United States. Any conflicts plaintiffs may face if they travel out of state, or rights which they will not receive from the federal government, pale beside the tremendous protections and rights that access to marriage would provide for plaintiffs and their families under this State's laws, ranging from rights in times of emergency, protections for children raised in the family, financial protections and rights on the death of a spouse…
The United States Supreme Court has recently explained that
"times can blind us to certain truths and later generations can see that
laws once thought necessary and proper in fact serve only to oppress. As the
Constitution endures, persons in every generation can invoke its principles in
their own search for greater freedom." (
IV. Summary
It was only less than 40 years ago that the United States Supreme Court held that anti-miscegenation statutes, adopted to prevent marriages between persons solely on the basis of racial classification, violate the Constitution because they infringed on the freedom to marry a person of one's choice. Similarly, this court must so hold in the context of same-sex marriages.
Marriage is, without a doubt, the cornerstone of the family and our
civilization. (Zablocki, 434 US 374 [1978].) As marriage constitutes the
most intimate of relationships (Griswold v
Marriage provides an extensive legal structure that honors and protects a
couple's relationship, helps support the family and its children through an
unparalleled array of rights and responsibilities, and privileges a married
couple as a single financial and legal unit. As discussed previously,
notwithstanding that
As a society, we recognize that the decision of whether and whom to marry is life-transforming. It is a unique expression of a private bond and profound love between a couple, and a life dream shared by many in our culture. It is also society's most significant public proclamation of commitment to another person for life. With marriage comes not only legal and financial benefits, but also the supportive community of family and friends who witness and celebrate a couple's devotion to one another, at the time of their wedding, and through the anniversaries that follow. Simply put, marriage is viewed by society as the utmost expression of a couple's commitment and love. Plaintiffs may now seek this ultimate expression through a civil marriage.
Rote reliance on historical exclusion as a justification improperly forecloses constitutional analysis and would have served to justify slavery, anti-miscegenation laws and segregation. There has been a steady evolution of the institution of marriage throughout history which belies the concept of a static traditional definition. Marriage, as it is understood today, is both a partnership of two loving equals who choose to commit themselves to each other and a state institution designed to promote stability for the couple and their children. The relationships of plaintiffs fit within this definition of marriage.
Similar to opposite-sex couples, same-sex couples are entitled to the same fundamental right to follow their hearts and publicly commit to a lifetime partnership with the person of their choosing. The recognition that this fundamental right applies equally to same-sex couples cannot legitimately be said to harm anyone.
While, undeniably, religious institutions have a historical and spiritual interest in marriage and the recognition of those married under their tenets, ultimately it is the government's choice as to which relationships to recognize as valid civil marriages and whether, and the degree to which, legal protections, burdens and privileges should be conferred on that civil institution. The court recognizes that this decision may cause pain to some in that their religious convictions forbid the recognition of same-sex marriage. However, the court emphasizes that government recognition that same-sex couples may be civilly married does not impact on those married under the tenets of their individual faith, and does not require that religious institutions change their tenets, nor their definition of marriage under their faith. Moreover, such religious considerations cannot legally be the basis upon which to curtail the constitutional rights of plaintiffs.
Furthermore, that prejudice against gay people may still prevail elsewhere cannot be a legitimate justification for maintaining it in the marriage laws of this State. "Private biases may be outside the reach of the law, but the law cannot, directly or indirectly, give them effect." (Palmore v Sidoti, 466 US 429, 433 [1984].)
Accordingly, it is hereby ordered that plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment is granted; it is further ordered that defendant's cross motion for summary judgment is denied; it is further adjudged and declared that the Domestic Relations Law violates article I, §§ 6 and 11 of the Constitution of this State; it is further adjudged and declared that the words "husband," "wife," "groom" and "bride," as they appear in the relevant sections of the Domestic Relations Law, are and shall be construed to mean "spouse," and all personal pronouns, as they appear in the relevant sections of the Domestic Relations Law, are and shall be construed to apply equally to either men or women; and it is further ordered that defendant is permanently enjoined from denying a marriage license to any couple, solely on the ground that the two persons in that couple are of the same sex.
In May, 2008, the California Supreme Court overturned Proposition 22, an initiative from 2000 banning same-gender marriage. The 4-3 decision was based on the California State Constitution and said:
“[S]trict scrutiny (...) is applicable here because (1) the statutes in question properly must be understood as classifying or discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation, a characteristic that we conclude represents — like gender, race, and religion — a constitutionally suspect basis upon which to impose differential treatment, and (2) the differential treatment at issue impinges upon a same-sex couple's fundamental interest in having their family relationship accorded the same respect and dignity enjoyed by an opposite-sex couple.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_re_Marriage_Cases
Proposition 8 was a new initiative in 2008 to override this California Supreme Court decision, and it passed by a shrinking majority, now 52-48. When this same wording was voted into law in Proposition 22 in 2000, the vote was 61-39. In just 8 years, the majority shrank by nearly 10%. This might be the best argument against Proposition 8: fewer and fewer people want it to pass, as more and more people are educated about the issue because of the more and more open debate about it. When I was in high school and just beginning to understand that I was "gay"--a word that hadn't even come into use at that time for homosexuals--I went to the public library to find some books on the subject. I looked up the word "homosexual" in the card catalog and found only a couple of books, and those books were in the psychiatry section of the library. That is how times have changed just during my lifetime. Now, in the polls, a majority of young people have a very live-and-let-live attitude about homosexuals. It is an issue that appears to be dying out as a controversy, which is a very positive thing for minority people to understand.
Because of the shrinking majority and a more impassioned minority, there is a vigorous movement underway to repeal Proposition 8. The California Supreme Court has agreed to review the case, brought before them immediately after the election by several same-gender couples. This review will probably be before March, 2009.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081119/ap_on_re_us/gay_marriage_lawsuits#full
"If given effect, Proposition 8 would work a dramatic, substantive change to our Constitution's 'underlying principles' of individual on a scale and scope never previously condoned by this court," lawyers for the same-sex couples stated in their petition.
The measure represents such a sweeping change that it constitutes a constitutional revision as opposed to an amendment, the documents say. The distinction would have required the ban's backers to obtain approval from two-thirds of both houses of the California Legislature before submitting it to voters.
http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/courts/supreme/highprofile/prop8.htm
Many communities have joined together in the fight to repeal Proposition 8.
http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/ci_11020892?source=email
And this debate will go on and on and on.
Contact: Clayton Bess
Copyright © 2009 Robert Locke
All Rights Reserved