Thinking to Believe

Earlier this week, Hawaii’s senate passed a same-sex marriage bill.  Yesterday, the House approved a similar bill.  It needs to go back to the senate for reconciliation, and then on to the governor for signature (who will sign it).  This will make Hawaii the 15^th state (not including D.C.) to approve same-sex marriage.  Same-sex marriages will begin in Hawaii on December 2, 2013.

11/14/13 update: Governor Neil Abercrombie signed the bill into law on Wednesday, November 13, 2013.

In 2011 Illinois created civil unions.  Now, just two years later they are on the cusp of creating same-sex marriage.

The IL Senate had approved a bill in February to allow same-sex marriage, and now yesterday, the IL House approved the bill with minor changes.  It’s been sent back to the Senate for reconciliation, and will be signed by the governor.  Illinois will be the 15^th state (not including D.C.) to approve same-sex marriage, beginning June 1, 2014.

UPDATE: Governor Pat Quinn signed the bill into law on November 20, 2013.

In 2006, the New Jersey Supreme Court ruled that the NJ legislature must give same-sex couples all of the same rights and benefits as opposite-sex couples, but did not demand that the state amend its marriage laws.  The legislature responded by creating civil unions that had identical benefits to marriage.

Fast forward seven years, and Judge Mary C. Jacobson of the State Superior Court ruled on September 27, 2013 that this is not enough – the state must call same-sex unions marriage as well starting Monday, October 21, 2013.  Governor Christie vowed to appeal the decision to the NJ Supreme Court, but when that court refused to block the law while Christie challenged it, and made it clear that they would not rule in his favor, he decided to withdraw his appeal, meaning NJ is now the 14^th state to offer same-sex marriage.

Bill Clinton has written an op-ed in The Washington Post throwing his support behind the overturning of the Defense of Marriage Act — a bill he signed into law 17 years ago. His timing is clearly political, given the fact that the Supreme Court will hear arguments for overturning DOMA on March 27. While the justices should not be influenced by his opinions, his actions carry symbolic weight that the Supreme Court justices cannot help but to notice. After all, if the very President who signed the bill into law no longer supports it, that speaks volumes.

I find it interesting that he justifies his signing of the law in 1996 on the grounds that “it was a very different time” then, but also claims that the law is “incompatible with our Constitution.”  Has the Constitution changed?  No.  So how could a law be constitutional 17 years ago but unconstitutional today?  It’s because Clinton subscribes to the “living document” view of the Constitution in which the meaning of the Constitution changes with the culture, though the words remain the same.  I think this philosophy of Constitutional interpretation is flawed.  The Constitution means what its drafters intended it to mean, and what its signers and ratifiers understood it to mean.  The meaning of a document does not change over time.  If the Constitution can mean whatever we want it to mean, and if the Constitution can be interpreted in light of cultural changes, then the Constitution cannot protect any of us because it doesn’t mean anything in particular.  It is just silly putty in the hands of the judiciary.

First Britain, now France.  France has allowed civil unions that confer many of the benefits of marriage since 1999.  Today, France’s National Assembly – its lower house of parliament – approved a bill (329-229) that would define marriage as contract between two people regardless of their sex, and allow same-sex couples to adopt children.  Now it goes to the Senate, where it is expected to pass as well.  If it does, France will become the 12^th country to legalize same-sex marriage following:

1. (more…)

That is what some Christians and secularists suggest.  They think marriage should be a private institution handled by churches and others, while the government sits by as a neutral observer.  That may salve over the current political and cultural debate over the definition of marriage, but is this a good idea?  Jennifer Roback Morse thinks not, and wrote a three-part series explaining why (1, 2, 3).  She argues that privatizing marriage is not only impossible in practice, but that it would result in more state power and would unnecessarily hurt children.

(more…)

Yesterday, the 9^th circuit federal court of appeals upheld District Judge Vaughn Walker’s August 2010 decision that California’s Proposition 8 is unconstitutional by a 2-1 vote.  Prop 8 was a voter referendum to amend the CA constitution to declare that marriage is only valid between a man and a woman.  While the CA Supreme Court ruled that the amendment is constitutional (when judged against the California Constitution), their decision was appealed and Judge Walker ruled that it violates the U.S. Constitution.  The 9^th circuit court agrees.

(more…)