As gay-rights groups call for marital equality and opponents warn of a public backlash, societal decay and religious conflict, the California Supreme Court is prepared for an epic three-hour hearing Tuesday on the constitutionality of the state law defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman.
It shapes up as the most momentous case the court has heard in decades – comparable to the 1981 ruling that guaranteed Medi-Cal abortions for poor women, the 1972 ruling that briefly overturned the state’s death penalty law, and the 1948 decision, cited repeatedly in the voluminous filings before the court, that struck down California’s ban on interracial marriage.
The arguments on both sides are weighty.
Supporters of same-sex marriage invoke the state’s commitment to equality regardless of gender or sexual orientation, the needs of the children of gay and lesbian couples, the persistence of societal discrimination, and legal rights such as freedom of expression, association and privacy.
In defense of its law, the state cites a cultural tradition far older than statehood, the will of the people as expressed in a 2000 initiative, the steps California has already taken toward equal rights for gays and lesbians, and the power of lawmakers and voters to determine state policy.
Beyond those arguments, groups opposing same-sex marriage want the court to justify the state law on moral or scientific grounds, as an affirmation that limiting matrimony to a man and a woman is best for children and society.
Odd. Why is there no mention that if ssm is permitted, than multiple partners must inevitably follow, and that permitting three or an indefinite number to marry will destroy the meaning of marriage entirely.
T his argument seems always to be scouted when the powers that be join the issue on ssm. LM
It will be webcast live here:
http://www.calchannel.com/webcast.htm
My prediction is the state law will stand 4-3.
Larry, why is it inevitable that multiple partners must always follow permission for SSM? It seems that some countries already permit multiple partners (and faith traditions) while soundly condemning homosexuality.
I can’t comment on grounds for a legal prohibition, but form a liberal perspective, I can still draw the line at one partner only by looking at equality and mutuality. You can’t promise to give “all that I am and all that I have” to more than one other person. Exclusivity is essential to fulfill the vows.
Dirk
“You can’t promise to give “all that I am and all that I have†to more than one other person.”
Don’t be such a bigot! Why this hate speech against polyamorists?
Dirk, what will you do when a ‘totally committed, long-time, very sincere, very Christian, obviously blessed by the Holy Spirit’ threesome shows up and demands the Church pronounce a blessing upon their relationship?
Answer: You MUST do as they demand, because your only authority is one’s experience — and since they’re ‘nice’ people, it must be OK. That is the logical fallacy with the Church allowing SSBs, which are totally prohibited by Scripture and Church Tradition. And, since TEC has tossed the Scriptural and Traditional witness on so many issues, and since TEC blesses just about behavior our sex-crazed culture wants ‘blessed’, TEC is and shall in the future continue to ‘bless’ SS and polyamorous relationships. Your statement about ‘exclusivity’ does NOT preclude threesomes, or foursomes, or…any patten of sexual relationships. “We’re exclusive within our threesome (foursome, fivesome, whatever…).”
Little Cabbage, I don’t accept the premise of your resonse.
First, I don’t – nor does any priest or bishop – have to bless anything we don’t want. So they can demand a blessing all they want. I already have a long string of couples who’ve learned I say “no” to weddings when they have no interest in being involved in the church.
I also disagree with your statement that ‘exclusivity’ doe NOT preclude threesomes, etc. I cannot be totally focused, totally available to you if there is somebody else in the mix. Part of me is held back for that other person. That’s not the sacramental understanding of marriage, where each party of the covenant pledges themselves in totality to the other.
I’m not using exclusive to mean “exclusively us,” I mean a relationship that is exclusive to any other individual or distraction.
Dirk
Because the issue has been cast as a mattr of what we vaguely call civil rights – a universal permission slip. If as a constitutional matter, two homosexuals can marry, then equal protection requires t ht three – any number – can marry. This is unavoidable. Do you have an objection to three of four people marrying? Why can’t they say “All that we are and all that we have? ” Won’t that work perfectly well?
In short, once you are allowed to break the rules, the rules stay broken, and the new rule become what remains when the old rules no longer govern. LM
Larry, I stand by my understanding that there is no way 3 or more people can enter into the covenant bond of marriage. There is no way to preserve equality in such a relationship. Someone is always going to be on the outside. Someone is always going to get more attention then another person. It just can’t be done, and still express the intent of the marriage vows.
I’m not going to speculate on the legal argument (and just because it’s legal doesn’t mean the church has to permit it) since I’m not legally trained. My opinion would be mere guesswork, but my guess is there would be a way to prevent a court from ordering such a scenario. However, I suppose legislature are free to permit polygamy. I doubt there would be real call for it though – those who might be so inclined would be better off just having non-legal households. Can you imagine the divorce issues?!!
Anyway, I don’t see it as a matter of laws and rules, but as a matter of grace and how grace can be recognized and celebrated. I know we totally disagree on the issues of SSM and that we won’t change on another’s minds, so I’m not going to debate that. However, I remain to be convinced that opening marriage to same-gendered couples automatically requires everything else to follow. I just don’t see it.
Dirk
#7 writes: Because the issue has been cast as a mattr of what we vaguely call civil rights – a universal permission slip. If as a constitutional matter, two homosexuals can marry,
Yesterday’s hearing before the California Supreme Court was not the first time that court had looked at marriage in terms of equality and civil rights. The Perez case, throwing out race as a category, was sixty years ago. That case did not create a warrant for polygamy. Why should a favorable response to marriage equality for same-sex couples be any different?