Home › Opinion › Pulse
Court review welcome
STORY TOOLS 
More from PulseProponents of Proposition 8 repeatedly talk about how marriage is a 5,000-year-old institution between one man and one woman. They also say that now that Californians have spoken, the will of the people must be recognized.
They are misguided on both counts.
Marriage as we know it today is a modern invention, surely post-Industrial Revolution, but probably more accurately, post World War II. Through most of history, marriages were forced upon its participants, especially women. Many were created while the bride and groom were young children. Often, they were basically a financial transaction that included dowries, property or other remuneration.
In most of these situations, there was no freedom of the participants to enter into these relationships. And, as a result, there was often no exit, even in situations of horrendous abuse. Often, women were viewed as property and were treated as such.
In many societies, including those written about in the Bible, there was polygamy — families with one husband and several to many wives. (This was common among Mormons until well into the 20th century, a fact that somehow escaped much review during the heated Proposition 8 election campaign when members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter- day Saints reportedly donated more than $20 million to support a ban on same-sex marriage.)
Today, throughout the Western world, marriage is a civil institution. When you want to get married, you go to a courthouse and file papers. In most cases, you can have your civil ceremony right there and you are then married. If you later decide to terminate the marriage, you must pursue divorce proceedings in a court of law, which follows rules that protect spouses and minor children.
If you would like to be married in a church or by a member of the clergy, you must follow a separate or parallel path. You must contact that clergy member, convince him or her that you follow the doctrines of that religion and will continue to do so and any other stipulations they have. If you are Catholic, for example, you may not be able to be married in the church if you had been married previously and didn't received an official church annulment of the first marriage. If you are Jewish, most rabbis will require both participants to be practicing adherents to Judaism.
The California Supreme Court ruling on same-sex marriage in May did not change in any way the religious part of marriage. In its opinion, the California Supreme Court explicitly states that no church and no clergy are required to perform marriages that violate their beliefs. The California Supreme Court ruling recognized that marriage as a civil institution must treat all members of our society equally. It, therefore, ordered that same-sex couples have the same access to civil marriages as heterosexual couples have.
Now that 52 percent of Californians have said that they don't believe that same-sex couples should have the right to a civil marriage, the opponents of same-sex marriage believe the question has been resolved and that any court challenges are "undemocratic." Our American system of checks and balances was designed to deal with just such a situation.
Throughout U.S. history, there have been numerous times when the majority believed strongly, often supported by its religious beliefs, that another group of citizens should be treated in a different way than the rest of society. Two examples are the integration of public schools and inter-racial marriage. Both were decided by courts and would likely have been overturned if votes of the populace had been allowed.
One of the key roles of courts established by the Constitution is to protect minorities from the tyranny of majorities, especially related to individual rights. As Justice Joyce Kennard wrote in her concurring opinion in the California same-sex marriage case, whether a state ban on same-sex marriage is constitutional "is not a matter to be decided by the executive or legislative branch or by popular vote, but is instead an issue of constitutional law for resolution by the judicial branch."
It isn't clear what the California Supreme Court will do when it hears cases in March seeking to challenge Proposition 8. It is important to accept that this is a legitimate role as part of our government structure.
— Steve Fields lives in Ojai.
Posted by ribbypaultz on November 30, 2008 at 7:10 a.m. (Suggest removal)
In its opinion, the California Supreme Court explicitly states that no church and no clergy are required to perform marriages that violate their beliefs.
Hah. We'll see how long that lasts before the gays try to start forcing churches to perform marriages.
Posted by Tom_Johnston on November 30, 2008 at 6:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)
There is this belief, and I think a false one, that if you can, by any means, get enough people to vote for this or that thing, then that makes it legit, legal, and just.
Prop 8 is a good case in point why that isn't true.
Our Government is not a democracy, it is a Republic
There is a difference. It's often been said that "democracy=mob rule".
Our Govenment has a series of checks and balances, it does not provide for a direct votes on issues by citizens that over-ride the customary checks.
I really don't know if Prop 8 will pass a Court decision or not, and for that matter whether it should. Frankly this whole "defense of marriage" cause is a bit ludicrous given the rates of heterosexual divorce.
I'm still unclear why and how the entire issue of "marriage" is a government perogative to dispense as it sees fit.
I do believe that it is wrong to believe that a majority can rule without consideration of the context of that decision by the Courts. The Courts are the ultimate check on excesses by the other branches of government, including public plebiscite.
That's how it is folks..that's how your government works....get over it.
Posted by bahensley4 on December 2, 2008 at 3:55 a.m. (Suggest removal)
What is it that people do not get about civil or human rights? When you suppress other people’s rights eventually, your rights may be at risk.
As for the clergy refusing to marry gay people…there are plenty of clergy more than happy to marry people that love each other.
I think that people who do not understand the law and the Constitution should set aside their emotions and learn to read these documents. These are as good as commandments. These directives are the law of the land and must be enforced to preserve our liberties as we know them.
I believe the Bible says, “Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s” - Matthew 22:21.
In translation, that means there is a separation between secular laws and that of God's and that it must be respected. Too many people are “made” ignorant in this world, and this works very well for those who are in power and who wish to abuse that power.
Posted by OjaiGuy on December 2, 2008 at 10:49 a.m. (Suggest removal)
bahensley4 That's a spin. In the context of the passage, the debate was about paying taxes. However, in the broader statement that Jesus is making, that is, "rendering unto Ceasar what is his and to God what is His", isn't that what Christians are doing and being criticized for?
If we are truly Christians, we follow God first, and He is quite clear that homosexuality is a sin, no greater and no less than many others sins. We cannot in good conscience condone homosexuality, as that would be against God. What if the government bans religious expression? Does that mean we obey the government, or God? We follow God first, and submit to the governemnt as long as it does not violate God's word.
As far as the mixing of religious and secular beliefs, it is permissable under our Constitution, and applies to voting rights. In the Bible, when Paul was about to be whipped for his preaching, he demanded a hearing before Ceasar, which was his right as a Roman citizen, and it was granted. We as Christians and US citizens still have the right to vote and to vote our conscience, whether it is based on influences that are religious, secular or both.
Posted by jeffinventura on December 4, 2008 at 3:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)
The courts will now rule on this because the people are not responsible enough to respect the rights of all Americans or the Constitution.
GOD BLESS EQUAL RIGHTS FOR ALL!
Article discussions on this site are to support community debates of issues related to our stories and editorials.
Discussions should not stray from the subject of the story or editorial.
We do not allow the following:
- Posts that degrade others on the basis of gender, race, class, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual orientation or disability.
- Disparaging remarks, abusive language or obscene comments.
- Threats, whether obvious or veiled.
We reserve the right to delete threads and/or ban users for these or other reasons we deem necessary.
Opinions are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.
There are 5 comments to this article.
Comments are found beneath the Yahoo! ad below.