Recently Prop 8 "backers" requests to dismiss the gay-marriage case that will challenge the constitutionality of the law were rejected in a San Francisco courtroom by federal Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker.
In fact "One by one, the judge shot down the legal reasons Proposition 8 lawyers presented to resolve the case now and allow the same-sex marriage ban to remain in force...[seeming] particularly unpersuaded by Proposition 8 attorney Charles Cooper's chief argument for a state law confining marriage to heterosexual couples — that the state has an interest in protecting "traditional" marriage because of its importance to procreation in society."
Judged Walker rather challenged Copper's argument by citing statistics that a large percent of children are born out to single mothers and further saying that "Procreation doesn't require marriage."
To such legal challenge on Prop.8 Judge Walker concluded that California's voter-approved measure that bans gay marriage must and will be resolved in a "full-blown" trial scheduled for January 2010. It is until then that same-sex marriage advocates will argue that Proposition 8 violates the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment because it denies same sex couples the right to marry.
Nonetheless, California Supreme Court has upheld Proposition 8 previously, concluding that it could not "trump" the voters who approved the measure back in November 2008. But I say what about the 18,000 same-sex marriages that took place before Proposition 8 went into effect in California, can they "trump" over them?! Furthermore, is it fair to continue denying gay couples the right to wed while thousands of same-sex marriages remain legal in the state.
If you were to ask me about it? It was at first quite surprising that a great population of California would ratify,uphold, and enforce a law that discriminates. it is specifically targeted at the LGBT community by stripping away the right to marry with whom they chose to spend their life with. Counter attacks claim to be protecting "traditional" marriages, but what is indeed a "traditional" marriage? One between a man and a woman some might argue. But what about evidence that reflects that throughout human history 'traditional' marriage has been infested with polygony, arrange, forced, and child marriages amongst others that predicate on the subjugation and objectification of women? (Pollit presents a very solid argument supported by historical evidence) I propose we alter the definition of "traditional" marriage into one of a bond of love, sexual orientation should NOT matter. So promote EQUALITY for all and...
0 comments:
Post a Comment