Friday, 13 August 2010

Bitter divisions over Prop 8

I have only been vaguely following this story, due to being away on holiday, but someone has just sent me this information just this morning:
Today Judge Walker gave the anti- same sex marriage folks another week to argue against a permanent injunction--"permanent injunction" meaning until this case is ultimately decided at the highest court level it reaches. Most pro-marriage legal minds expect that if Walker does not invoke this injunction (continuing the ban on gay marriages for the meantime), the 9th Circuit will immediately do so--in part to keep any of the Supreme Court judges from getting involved.
So, we should hear that same sex marriage licences are yet again vetoed in California, until this decision has been appealed, as it very likely will be, and the case heard.

You can read a little more about the details of Walker's ruling here.

The email I received followed on from one yesterday, which reported on a demo in Indianapolis, organised by a fundamentalist Christian group, the National Organisation for Marriage. One demonstator allegedly carried this poster:

When bitterness and hatred unite, it is an ugly combination. A petition is to be sent to NOM asking them to disavow this poster and its incitement to murder.

2 comments:

  1. Some of the arguments have suggested that marriage shouldn't be the exclusive preserve of religious institutions. If the state recognises other forms of marriage outside of the church then why not single sex ones?

    Does the example of familial marriage equate in any way to same sex relationships? There must be issues of consent. Hence adult/children and human/animal marriage could not be countenanced. For good genetic reasons close familial relationships have long been frowned upon but that is not just a religious perspective.

    I was also thinking of interracial marriage which 30-40 years ago, if put to a public vote, would have been outlawed even though to have done so would have been unconstitutional.

    There is no reason other than human prejudice and right-wing mis-information to continue to prohibit same sex marriage. Do you know of any?

    I commented elsewhere that in Lutheransm, where something is not expressly mentioned then someone could make a hermeneutical case for it which the church would have to debate and draw a conclusion on - as indeed it has done im many nations in favour of faithful, loving same-sex relationships.

    As many people are now saying that the prohibitions to same-sex marriage today have been based on a holiness code which talks about cultic prostitution and not on faithful, consentual, loving adult relationships I can quite see how those national churches have drawn that conclusion.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I personally support same sex marriage. I feel that two people of the same sex who are in a committed permanent relationship are as married as an opposite sex couple. I can understand that for some people marriage is largely a vehicle for the procreation and upbringing of children. That does raise the issue of why we allow marriage to infertile people, or why a union doesn't become a "marriage" only once children are conceived. Also same sex unions are often a vehicle for the upbringing (if not procreation together) of children.

    ReplyDelete