Judicial Activism: Same Sex Marriage And The Aftermath Of Proposition 8
A COMMENT ON "SAME-SEX COUPLES AND THE RIGHT TO MARRY IN CALIFORNIA" BY PROFESSOR CIANCIARULO
Professor Cianciarulo brings up clever arguments to address the 3 main arguments proponents of the Proposition 8 raise. What caught my attention about the article was about religion and its correlation with marriage- namely gay marriage. I, too, have been raised Catholic since I can remember, and although the way I was raised had a lot to do with the decisions I make in the future, I am not bound by the walls of my religion. Religion is a choice, and that notion has been lose in lieu of Prop 8 arguments. While some want to "preserve" the sanctity of marriage by imposing their own religious views, it, like Prof. Cianciarulo pointed out, is a matter of personal preference and emotion. The constitution provides us the guarantees of the freedom of religion. We, as US citizens, are not bound by one religion, nor are we forced to believe in any spiritual leader either. How is it that a constitutionally protected right can infiltrate the laws that regulate our state? More importantly, how can religion be a deciding factor that strips another of a fundamental right, when there are so many religions out there?
The author pointed out clearly that marriage is a civil matter, and may include religion, if a person so chooses. But there is no where in our state constitution that mandates us to include religion in any way in the ceremony of marriage. While many do choose to include their spiritual beliefs in their weddings, it certainly is not a prerequisite to marriage by any means.
Times are changing in the United States. While few believed that an African American president would preside in the White House in our generation when there were (and probably are) still traces of racially discrimination in out country- it happened. Our views, our tolerance, and our cultures are changing. It seems quite baffling that discrimination toward certain groups still is so apparent, and state mandated. In a land that promises life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, with the passing of Prop 8, the state seems to be saying, "you can have those things only if you fit a certain package."
Who has the right or the ability to judge another on the quality of their relationship, or on how they can raise a family? Who really has that power to say- No, you may not have the same rights as another because you don't like the opposite sex? If our laws guarantee equal protection to targeted classifications of people, shouldn't we follow that line of reasoning rather than personal preference or judgment? Apparently not.
COMMENTS
Be the first to comment!
You must sign in before you can comment.
