Three-Judge Panel Strikes Down Prop 8

A three-judge panel of the 9^th Circuit Court of Appeals has just struck down California's Prop 8—an amendment to the Constitution that defines marriage as one man and one woman. From the ruling:

Although the Constitution permits communities to enact most laws they believe to be desirable, it requires that there be at least a legitimate reason for the passage of a law that treats different classes of people differently. There was no such reason that Proposition 8 could have been enacted….

All that Proposition 8 accomplished was to take away from same-sex couples the right to be granted marriage licenses and thus legally to use the designation of ‘marriage,’ which symbolizes state legitimization and societal recognition of their committed relationships. Proposition 8 serves no purpose, and has no effect, other than to lessen the status and human dignity of gays and lesbians in California, and to officially reclassify their relationships and families as inferior to those of opposite-sex couples. The Constitution simply does not allow for “laws of this sort.”

Hopefully, I need not say here that our opposition to same-sex marriage is not intended to lessen the dignity of any individual human being. We are all created in God's image and have equal intrinsic value. However, while nobody denies that same-sex couples do love each other just as any heterosexual couple does, there are relevant differences in the relationships that justify privileging heterosexual couples in a way same-sex couples aren't. This should in no way be taken to mean that a homosexual is less valuable as a human being. It's the innate differences between male and female, not homosexual and heterosexual, that are behind the arguments for bringing opposite sexes together through traditional marriage.

This subject obviously involves a lot of emotion, so to help you think through this as clearly as possible, I've collected some links from past posts—written, audio, and video—that give a good overview of the issues involved and respond to the concerns of the judges:

• Discussing Same-Sex Marriage (Audio) – "How do you make a reasonable argument against same-sex marriage rights? Greg answered that on a recent radio show."

• Same-Sex Marriage Challenges and Responses – "Western civilization is shuddering under a tidal wave of activism in favor of same-sex marriage. Here is a careful response to their most compelling arguments."

• What Is Marriage? – "One of the smartest men I know of, Robert P. George from Princeton University, with Sherif Girgis and Ryan T. Anderson have written an argument for the traditional definition of marriage. You can download the PDF and digest it."

• Denying Same-sex Marriage Isn't Unequal Protection – "An Iowa court recently ruled in favor of six same-sex couples who claimed that denying them the right to marry violates the equal protection clause. This argument seems reasonable at first. Straight people can marry. Gays cannot. This is not equal protection. A little reflection, however, reveals how this view is mistaken.''

• Judge Strikes Down Prop 8 – "Prop 8 makes a very rational classification on the basis of a relevant characteristic—that is, the gender of the participants. Men and women are different, and there's no getting around this. This fact has biological, emotional, psychological, and more ramifications when it comes to families and the creation and rearing of children. The fact is that both male and female are essential to marriage."

• We're Arguing Definitions, Not Rights – "One common misconception in the same-sex marriage debate is the idea that the traditional legal definition of marriage is a violation of equal rights. Since this is an extremely emotionally charged accusation, it's difficult to get past it into a real discussion of the issue. Here's the approach I usually take…"

• Liberal Support for Traditional Marriage – "This self-described liberal Democrat supports California's Proposition 8, which would constitutionally define marriage between one man and one woman because, as the piece so well explains, marriage, as a societal institution recognized by government, is about children."

• Answering a Case for Same-Sex Marriage (Video) – Alan responds to Zach Wahls's video promoting same-sex marriage.

More resources

Comments

[RonH]

Washington will probably soon make gay marriage legal.

Note that this will be the legislature - not one of those nasty courts.

[ben]

Nice resources. Thanks for posting.

[Damian]

What a ridiculous opinon. One more innane judgment brought to you by the 9th circus.

[TheMorton]

There are so many pressing issues on families today that need to be addressed in our communities: job security, drug and alcohol abuse, quality child care...gay marriage? Is it any wonder why most people don't really care about this issue?

[Amy]

TheMorton, they don't care because they don't understand how those issues are related to the institution of the family, nor do they know the unique parts both mothers and fathers play in raising children that will build a stable society. The family is at the root of everything, so any change there will have huge implications down the road.

[Malebranche]

Same-sex couples will continue to be able to raise children. Conservative evangelicals have lost that battle. So, given that same-sex couples will continue to raise children whether same-sex marriage is legalized or not, the question arises: would those children being raised by same-sex couples be significantly benefited if their parents were granted the rights and privileges of marriage? If so, would such benefits outweigh the negative consequences (if there are any) that can reasonably be expected from same-sex marriage? I'm not suggesting these are the only relevant questions, but it is strange how often Christians discuss the effects of same-sex marriage on children and how seldom they even raise much less responsibly engage these questions. It's easy to get the impression from much Christian commentary on this issue that the effects of same-sex marriage on children will be uniformly negative. But why think that is true? Perhaps it is true, but what reasons do we have to be confident that legalizing same-sex marriage will have such disastrous effects on children, the family, and society at large?

[Ryan]

Why do proponents of same sex"marriage" argue as if Prop 8 forbids homosexuals from marrying ?
There is nothing in the law that says they cannot do like everyone else and marry a member of the opposite gender.

[Galileo Unchained]

At a time when Christians are decrying the rate of divorce, does it make sense to reject a group of people who are actually embracing marriage?

I think the Christian position against same-sex marriage will look pretty short-sighted a few decades from now. It wasn't that long ago that 17 states declared mixed-race marriage illegal, and it wasn't the churches that forced the change. Ouch.

[Bennett]

GU,

Way to non sequitur.