Comments about ‘Appeals court throws out same-sex marriage ban’

'Appeals court throws out same-sex marriage ban' - article

So, that's Judge Walkers ruling against Prop 8 and in support of gay marriage.

Judge Ware's ruling against prop 8 during the appeal.

And now, the 9th circuit ruling against Prop 8.

How legal, is this case?

The interesting fact is that this ruling is built on two truly bizarre acts of legal gymnastics.

On the one hand the court says that because the state has allowed domestic partnerships it must allow same-sex marriage. This of course ignores the purposes of marriage. I and others have presented arguments on the social goods that marriage gives that would be lost if we redefine it.

The purpose of marriage is to encorage the raising of children by married parents. The information from Scandinvia shows that once same-gender marriage is enacted the rate of child-rearing outside of wedlock goes over the crucial 50% threshold.

The other bizarre idea is that because the state at one point allowed same gender marriage, it cannot rescind it. This ignores the fact that the allowance was based around a reading of the state constitution and the state constitution was amended. It was also a result of the state supreme court showing no restraint, since they knew the issue would be put to a vote.

Those who defend marriage do not accept that the question of a word is inmaterial, and neither do those who oppose it. The anti-8 forces know full well that the change of the definition of marriage will have drastic and unforseen societal consequences. The language of Judge Walker basically desinates certain religious teachings as discriminatory, and opens the way for the government to declare them against public policy and then enact laws and rules to penalize religious groups that act against public policy in the matter of same-gender relations.

The issue at hand is not indivdual relations, but the meaning and function of marriage itself. We have sadly in many ways lost significant past battles. This is no reason to give up the things we have now.

There are significant arguments that should be considered that the redefinition of marriage will destroy the very things we value most about marriage. The debate here is between monogomous, companionate, hetereosexual marriage (MCHM), and something else. Those who bring up evolution of marriage arguments to attack MCHM are guilty of the false practice of reading history sideways. In 1300 marriage in England and France was essentially an MCHM situation.