Thinking to Believe

I have often said that when you think marriage is arbitrary and can be defined any way a society chooses to define it, then marriage can mean and be anything.  I have even predicted that if marriage can be redefined to include same-sex couples, then marriage could be redefined to be a temporary institution.  I must be a prophet, because this is exactly what Mexico City is proposing (and it is important to note that Mexico City also legalized same-sex marriage in 2009).

If you don’t want marriage to be until death do you part, Mexico City will allow you to enter into a two-year marriage.  At the end of the two years the marriage will expire, and each of you can go your separate ways without any hassle of divorce paperwork if you choose not to renew the contract.  How convenient!  The article notes how half of the marriages in Mexico City end in divorce after two years.  So how exactly will this help?  It will not curtail marital dissolutions; it will simply not call them “divorces.”  It will make marital dissolution even easier, which always spells “bad news” for the children involved.  Shame on Mexico City.

Once you abandon the notion that marriage is a natural institution that is recognized, not defined, by the state, marriage can become anything, and ceases to be something.

The Department of Defense has announced that military chaplains can officiate at same-sex marriages “on or off a military installation,”  even using Defense Department property to do so.  Do you see this as a federal endorsement of same-sex marriage?

Apparently Iowans didn’t like the idea of their Supreme Court forcing same-sex marriage on the state.  In last night’s elections, the voters ousted all three Supreme Court justices who were up for re-election—justices, who in 2009, declared same-sex marriage to be a constitutional right.  This is the first time any sitting Iowa Supreme Court justice has not been retained on the bench when put up for re-election.  The voters have sent a clear message to the supreme judiciary in their state: interpret the constitution, don’t reinvent it in your own image.  Of course, on a practical level this move will do nothing in the immediate future to change the status of same-sex marriage in Iowa.

Catching up on old news….  Argentina legalized same-sex marriage July 15, 2010.  They are the first country in Latin America to do so.  The legal recognition of same-sex unions as “marriage” continues to spread.

In November 2008, five months after the CA Supreme Court legalized same-sex marriage, the people of CA passed a constitutional amendment (52% to 48% ) to define marriage as a union between men and women only.  The constitutionality of the law was challenged, and the CA Supreme Court ruled that it was constitutional (it’s hard to say something in the constitution is not constitutional!).  That decision was appealed, and a federal judge just ruled yesterday that the constitutional amendment violates the U.S. Constitution.  Anyone surprised?  This is the way the gay agenda is always advanced: through the courts.  Why?  Because the democratic process isn’t working in their favor.

I have not read the judge’s decision, but I’ve read the decision of other courts who have made similar rulings and the legal rationale is usually the same.  I don’t buy the legal rationale one bit.  I do find it interesting that the judge who ruled on this gay happens to be gay.  That fact itself doesn’t necessarily mean he let his own personal biases or political agenda influence his decision, but only a fool would think it played no part at all.

The decision will be appealed.  And to whom will the case go?  None other than the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, the most liberal appellate court in the nation.  I wonder how they’ll vote!?!  There’s no question in my mind that they’ll upheld the decision of the federal judge and this will be appealed all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court.  We’ll have to wait to see what happens.

Hawaii’s Senate approved a bill providing civil unions to same-sex and opposite-sex couples in January 2010.  Yesterday, their House of Representatives approved it as well.  It remains to be seen whether the governor will veto it.

Well, kind of.  In 2006 the NJ Supreme Court ruled that the state’s legislature had to provide equal benefits to same-sex couples as it did to heterosexual couples seeking legal recognition of their relationship.  The legislature complied, but chose to call same-sex unions “civil unions” rather than “marriage” (which was an upgrade from the “domestic partnerships” they implemented in 2004).  A bill introduced last year sought to make it law that same-sex unions be termed “marriages” rather than “civil unions.”  Today, the NJ Senate voted 20-14 against that bill.  

I say the Senate “kind of” voted against same-sex marriage because same-sex marriage already exists in New Jersey; it’s just called by a different name.  Same-sex couples would not have gained anything material had this bill passed, and they have not been denied anything material with its defeat.  They have merely been denied being able to call their state-recognized relationships “marriage.”  While there is something to be said about the value of a name, the fact of the matter is that the fight over same-sex marriage is not (or at least should not be) over who gets to use the “M” word, but over the legal recognition and sanction of same-sex relationships.  If you give same-sex couples all of the benefits and privileges of opposite-sex couples, you have de facto legalized same-sex marriage, whatever you call it.  Marriage by any other name is still marriage.

In May of this year the District of Columbia passed a law recognizing the legality of same-sex marriages performed in states where they are legal.  Today, they voted 11-2 to legalize same-sex marriages performed in D.C.  The mayor of D.C., Adrian Fenty, has vowed to sign it.  Because of D.C.’s unique status, the U.S. Congress has 30 legislative days to review the bill.  If they do not act to overturn it during that time, it becomes law (and there’s not much chance they will).  It looks like D.C. will be the sixth jurisdiction in the U.S. to legalize same-sex marriage.