News and commentary by: Whymrhymer
The media, and gay activists themselves, are coloring Thursday’s 1st District Court of Appeals ruling, upholding the state’s ban on gay marriage, as a defeat; the language of the decision, however, should be considered at least a partial victory.
“The time may come when California chooses to expand the definition of marriage to encompass same-sex unions. That change must come from democratic processes, however, not by judicial fiat.”
Those words, from the appeals court, if this ruling stands, removes the court system from the equation and, in a sense, returns the decision to the people — where it belongs.
From its very beginnings, marriage has been a societal and religious institution, the question of who can be married should have never become a matter for the legal system and the next step — what advocates of gay marriage should be concentrating on — is to remove that decision from the state legislature also. Appealing Thursday’s decision, as gay rights advocates are sure to do, would be a mistake. If this ruling puts the court system out of the picture, gay rights advocates should be ecstatic.
My thought are that each individual community should be able to decide what social norms are recognized in that community. If the citizens of the city of San Francisco, for example, want to accept same-sex unions as a social norm, what right has any other community to say they can not.
It’s time to face the reality that whether or not same-sex marriages are legal or even accepted, there will always be a ‘Melissa’ with two Daddies and a ‘Tommy’ with two mommies. Our legal system may be an awesomely powerful force in our lives but it will not change a person’s sexual orientation; nor should it try to!
Marriage means commitment and commitment is supposed to be a good thing. Ideally, when two people marry they become devoted to each other’s welfare and happiness. Does that change if the two people in question have the same ‘equipment?’ Of course not! Nor would it be the ruination of our society as many religious Conservatives would have you believe.