Wednesday, February 3, 2010

Proposition 8 Trial Pauses, but Not for Ruling

Courtney Casey

The New York Times article written by Jesse McKinley on January 28th, 2010 raised concern of whether or not the issue should be investigated a little more. In California, Proposition 8 is the ban on same-sex marriage. The trial brought to federal court lasted two weeks and came close to an even vote. Fifty-two percent of the voters voted for the ban. The costly campaign might possibly be reviewed in March.
The defense of proposition 8 argued that the plaintiff didn’t deal with the main point of the case, and that is whether the people have the right to vote if marriage is between only a man and a women. The plaintiffs argued three major pints in the article. They stated that it was a violation of their rights and that it wasn’t equal. Another point they argued was that not allowing same-sex marriage wasn’t favorable to the public and that it was depriving them of the rights they deserve as a person.
I feel that same-sex marriage is something that could only help us develop as a whole. No matter who you want to marry, love is love and the government doesn’t have the right to decide that it’s not allowed. Marriage has to deal with both the church and the legal system. Even though churches look down upon same-sex marriage, the right to decided if we should have same sex-marriage should come from the people since this is who Proposition 8 effects.

1 comment:

  1. The whole thing i have a problem with is the term 'marriage'. by demanding same sex marriages, you demand religions to change thousands of years of beliefs. same sex unions, however deal specifically with the state and have nothing to do with religion.