Gays and Lesbians in America Win the Fight for Marriage
Defining marriage as a relationship of a woman and a man violates the constitution — the ruling of the judge may lead to a change in the model of an American family.
All the important media reported the judgment passed this week by a federal judge. The case of a lesbian, Kristin Perry, who sued Governor of California Arnold Schwarzenegger because the government did not allow her to marry her partner, Sandra Stier, will possibly find its way into the annals of American history. So far — in accordance with the amendment to the state constitution adopted by referendum in 2008 — a marriage in California was defined as a relationship between a man and a woman.
Judge Vaughn Walker, widely known as a defender of homosexuals' rights, wrote in the summary of the 138-page ruling that an amendment defending such a definition of a marriage has "no rational foundation," and as a matter of fact does not preserve anything save "the sanctification of a view that heterosexual couples are better than homosexual." Thus, he considers this law as discriminatory to gays and lesbians and contradictory to the constitution.
The gay activists were happy that "equality, love and tolerance won" and highlighted the fact that "gays' rights are human rights." The supporters of a traditional form of marriage are worried that Judge Walker's ruling will threaten the 45 other states where the right to marry is reserved for a man and a woman.
The Catholic Church also expressed the concern over the judgment, noting that it is an infringement on the will of the majority of Americans and reminding listeners that marriage between man and woman is the foundation of social life, and altering this institution does not serve the common good. Judge Walker clearly gave a hint that the clergy and the faithful should stay away from homosexuals. "Moral disapproval" is, to his mind, too slight a reason to refuse gays and lesbians their rights.
Both sides of the conflict know that it is a very important decision. For the first time, the federal court dealt with the case of marriage between people of the same sex. And it means that after the appeal — gays and lesbians hope that the liberal court of the second level will sustain the favorable judgment — the case will get to the Supreme Court. Its ruling will decide finally the rights of homosexuals in America.
Today — despite running many campaigns in liberal media and having their "own" president (gays and lesbians often remind Barack Obama of the fact that he can count on them for their mass support in elections) — homosexual marriage is legal only in a few of the 50 states: Massachusetts, Iowa, Connecticut, Vermont, New Hampshire and the District of Columbia.*
For many liberals, the very questioning of relationships of people of the same sex, or any other "gloomy dilemmas" concerning their right to adopt children, is politically incorrect. During the recent months, CNN broadcast many features presenting happy children of homosexual couples, or two men impatiently waiting for the birth of their baby (it was obviously an in vitro fertilization with the participation of a surrogate mother). The liberals wonder why it is that nobody questions the legality of a relationship between a black man and a white woman (or the other way around). Why do such dilemmas affect the marriage of two men or two women?
Regardless, a recent Gallup poll showed that as many as 53 percent of Americans still think that homosexual marriages should not be recognized by law. The opposite view is held by 44 percent of the public. However, the judge from California showed that the opinion of the majority of the Americans — even when expressed in a final referendum — does not count at all.
*Proofreader’s Note: New York has also legalized same-sex marriage.
All the important media reported the judgment passed this week by a federal judge. The case of a lesbian, Kristin Perry, who sued Governor of California Arnold Schwarzenegger because the government did not allow her to marry her partner, Sandra Stier, will possibly find its way into the annals of American history. So far — in accordance with the amendment to the state constitution adopted by referendum in 2008 — a marriage in California was defined as a relationship between a man and a woman.
Judge Vaughn Walker, widely known as a defender of homosexuals' rights, wrote in the summary of the 138-page ruling that an amendment defending such a definition of a marriage has "no rational foundation," and as a matter of fact does not preserve anything save "the sanctification of a view that heterosexual couples are better than homosexual." Thus, he considers this law as discriminatory to gays and lesbians and contradictory to the constitution.
The gay activists were happy that "equality, love and tolerance won" and highlighted the fact that "gays' rights are human rights." The supporters of a traditional form of marriage are worried that Judge Walker's ruling will threaten the 45 other states where the right to marry is reserved for a man and a woman.
The Catholic Church also expressed the concern over the judgment, noting that it is an infringement on the will of the majority of Americans and reminding listeners that marriage between man and woman is the foundation of social life, and altering this institution does not serve the common good. Judge Walker clearly gave a hint that the clergy and the faithful should stay away from homosexuals. "Moral disapproval" is, to his mind, too slight a reason to refuse gays and lesbians their rights.
Both sides of the conflict know that it is a very important decision. For the first time, the federal court dealt with the case of marriage between people of the same sex. And it means that after the appeal — gays and lesbians hope that the liberal court of the second level will sustain the favorable judgment — the case will get to the Supreme Court. Its ruling will decide finally the rights of homosexuals in America.
Today — despite running many campaigns in liberal media and having their "own" president (gays and lesbians often remind Barack Obama of the fact that he can count on them for their mass support in elections) — homosexual marriage is legal only in a few of the 50 states: Massachusetts, Iowa, Connecticut, Vermont, New Hampshire and the District of Columbia.*
For many liberals, the very questioning of relationships of people of the same sex, or any other "gloomy dilemmas" concerning their right to adopt children, is politically incorrect. During the recent months, CNN broadcast many features presenting happy children of homosexual couples, or two men impatiently waiting for the birth of their baby (it was obviously an in vitro fertilization with the participation of a surrogate mother). The liberals wonder why it is that nobody questions the legality of a relationship between a black man and a white woman (or the other way around). Why do such dilemmas affect the marriage of two men or two women?
Regardless, a recent Gallup poll showed that as many as 53 percent of Americans still think that homosexual marriages should not be recognized by law. The opposite view is held by 44 percent of the public. However, the judge from California showed that the opinion of the majority of the Americans — even when expressed in a final referendum — does not count at all.
*Proofreader’s Note: New York has also legalized same-sex marriage.