The social and political climate in the late 1990s was quite different regarding the definition of marriage, so different there was little resistance towards passing the Defense of Marriage Act which set the federal standard of marriage between one man and one woman. Only a traditional marriage would be recognized by the federal government.
A constitutional amendment is difficult to implement as it should be. Our founding fathers wisely made a provision that allowed the constitution to adapt to the wishes of its majority republic.
The definition of marriage by our framers was quite different than the evolving meaning of marriage being done today. This is a fact. Never did the framers image that the traditional social institution of marriage would be challenged with other meanings.
Our tax laws slowly evolved to give an advantage and to encourage people to marry. It was by definition “discriminatory” since the production of children would guarantee the growth and health of a vibrant society. The vitality of any society can be measured by its institution of marriage.
DOMA discriminated as a result of the traditional standard of marriage being used. Based on this standard, same sex couples were unfairly marginalized. Equality needed to be corrected, either through civil unions or domestic partnerships, or changing the meaning of marriage. The portions of DOMA discriminating against same sex couples was ruled unconstitutional….as it should have been, but what about the rest of DOMA?
The Supreme Court ruled that DOMA discriminated if the state had passed a law legalizing same sex marriages. So far, 14 states have laws on the books affirming same sex marriage while 36 states do not. In spite of the rush to perform same sex marriage in California which also involved opening city hall on Saturday, the lower court has not rendered its decision.
It is customary to observe a waiting period while an official standing can be set, unfortunately the weddings being performed in California since Wednesday’s Supreme Court ruling may be premature.
California’s Prop 8 was refused to be heard by the US Supreme Court which used a never before administered technicality to throw Prop 8 back to the lower court. Since a private citizen argued the case for Prop 8 supporters, the highest court stipulated that it had never been done before and declared the private citizen had no legal standing to petition the Court.
The entire Prop 8 process has been convoluted from the start, from the California Initiative signed by hundreds of thousands of registered voters to reaffirm that “marriage was between one man and one woman” to the ruling yesterday. Enter Jerry Brown’s attorney general office who then changed the focus of the petition to read, “makes gay marriage illegal” for “clarity”, and you have a subject hundreds of thousands of petitioners DID NOT SIGN UP FOR.
Gay marriage was forced upon the voters of California as Prop 8, not by the petition process itself. This is severe boondoggle number one that NOBODY WANTS TO ADDRESS.
Next, Prop 8 was not defended by either Jerry Brown or top cop Kamala Harris even though it is their duty to do so which is boondoggle number two. Did they know that this would effectively kill Prop 8 based on their own personal preferences? Coincidentally, this very action of Brown and Harris effectively scuttled the will of millions of voters in California and left judicial review as the final call for Prop 8. Whether a calculated gamble or innocent misstep still needs to be answered.
The media has been absolutely silent with these events. Placing gay marriage as a ballot measure was a fast track political maneuver from the very beginning. It mattered little if Prop 8 would pass again as a ballot measure if both Jerry Brown and Kamala Harris would not defend Prop 8.
Looking at the record, the deck was stacked against Prop 8 from the beginning of the Marriage Initiative. It is a small wonder Prop 8 was disqualified by the Supreme Court based on the legal issues manufactured against it.
One should honestly wonder were these legal loopholes to discard the marriage initiative by accident or design?
Harris is now in a big hurry to substantiate same sex marriages in California and personally officiated a gay marriage ceremony instead of wisely waiting the necessary time frame from the lower court.http://www.patheos.com/blogs/yimcatholic/2013/06/california-attorney-general-kamala-harris-performs-first-same-sex-marriage-ceremony-earlier-today.html
The gay marriage issue in California will now be even more confusing to unravel, however there is something clearly rotten in Denmark since the Marriage Initiative went to then Attorney General Jerry Brown’s office as “the one man and one woman marriage initiative”.