It seems as though the controversy will never end, specifically regarding Prop. 8. Backed by many conservative groups, the initiative appeared on the November 2008 ballot and was passed, denying many same-sex couples the right to marriage.
The proposition passed by a slight majority, with about 52 percent voting yes and 47 percent voting no. Supporters of the ban argued that allowing same-sex marriage “threatens” the institution of marriage and directly affects every heterosexual marriage. But now let’s picture this: your long-time partner is down on one knee (or any other form of clichéd romance) and asks for your hand in marriage. The only response you can “logically” give is no. Why, he asks? Because you’re threatened by the gay-couple that recently got married in your neighborhood. It’s as absurd as it sounds.
Just last year, the ban went to the U.S. District Court in San Francisco and was struck down by Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker. Many of us would consider this the end of the entire argument, but supporters of the proposition are persistent to the point of utter desperation, in my opinion.
The sponsors of the same-sex marriage ban say Walker’s recent disclosure that he is in a long-term relationship with another man has given them new grounds for an appeal. In other words, because he openly identifies himself as a homosexual man and has been in a long-term same-sex relationship, his ruling on the case is not valid.
It’s argued that Walker would directly benefit from the ruling because he himself is in a same-sex relationship. But if we follow the opposition’s line of argument that every heterosexual marriage is directly threatened by gay marriages, then a married judge’s ruling on the case would also prove to be invalid. By the group’s own logic, married heterosexual judges would be forced to excuse themselves; the integrity of their own marriages could be damaged by the matter before them.
So, maybe only an unmarried judge who has sworn never to wed could hear cases about same-sex marriage — or any marriage at all, for that matter. Similarly, a judge who is Hispanic would never be able to rule on a case regarding racial discrimination of another Hispanic. Or we could also go as far as to say that a woman would never be able to rule on a case regarding gender-discrimination because she would “inherently” be directly affected.
Now it would be another story if Walker were an open activist for the LGBT community or had applied for a marriage license many times before and been denied; but no such thing was the case. The group’s lawyers argue that because Walker has a longtime male partner, he was unfit to render a decision on Prop. 8. If one day he should want to marry, he might benefit from his own decision.
I’m almost positive that the supporters’ appeal will not be granted, simply on the grounds that the basis for their argument is beyond absurd. The courts are currently reviewing the appeal and a decision should be made within the next couple of months.
Rudy Mendoza is a sophomore communications major and contributing writer for the Daily 49er.
Disclaimer: The Daily 49er is not responsible for Postings made on www.daily49er.wpengine.com. Persons commenting are solely responsible for Postings made on this website. Persons commenting agree to the Terms of Use of the website. If Postings do not abide by the Rules of Conduct or Posting Regulations as listed in the Postings Policy, the Daily 49er has all rights to delete Postings as it deems necessary. The Daily 49er strongly advises individuals to not abuse their First Amendment rights, and to avoid language suggestive of hate speech. This site also encourages users to make Postings relevant to the article or other Postings.
