Calif. court ruling unfortunate, correct
(Last updated: 05/27/09 7:16pm)Protesters are lining up in Lansing and other cities around the country — all for a proposal from California’s state elections last November.
Proposition 8, which passed in the election, outlawed same-sex marriage throughout the state and later became subject to a state Supreme Court review.
The court correctly decided to uphold the ban even though it shouldn’t have passed in the first place.
In a general election, the majority of California voters decided they didn’t want to officially refer to same-sex unions as marriages. Gay couples can still be in civil unions, which provide all the same benefits of marriage and are recognized by the state. The only thing Proposition 8 banned was calling the union between members of the same sex a marriage. Literally, this proposal was about a word.
California is considered one of the most liberal states in the country, so a portion of its populace likely isn’t happy with the decision. It seems that California voters take the word marriage very seriously, but a majority would prefer it not be used for civil unions.
There’s no reason the Supreme Court should have to overturn that.
But it doesn’t mean protesters in the state of Michigan can’t be upset about the result of this decision. California was supposed to set the trend for gay rights and be one of the first states to give same-sex couples every right married couples enjoy. Michigan voted to outlaw same-sex marriages in the state in the 2004 election, so maybe if California’s courts could overturn their election, our state could overturn ours. Unfortunately for the gay rights movement, and even the state of Michigan, the results were upheld.
Michigan could gain a lot if it reversed the 2004 election results. Massachusetts has recognized gay marriage and is seeing a considerable financial boom in its state economy. Allowing same-sex marriages brings in an estimated $37 million per year to the state. That is a small amount when compared to Massachusetts’ overall state budget, but the state didn’t have to put up much of its own money to see this kind of return. It’s practically free money.
The state can get money from things like marriage licenses, and the local economy gets a boost from the out-of-state tourism money. Forbes magazine even estimated that, if it’s applied countrywide, legal gay marriage would provide more than $16 billion to the wedding industry alone. And those estimates don’t even take long-term gains into consideration. Michigan has the opportunity to bring in a large number of people with disposable incomes that are looking to settle down for good. If the social gains of gay marriage aren’t enough to bring about legalization, then maybe the financial ones will be.
All Michigan would have to do is let them have a word.
Originally Published: 05/27/09 7:16pm
Yea uh...
05/28/09 2:00amI’m sorry but this is about more than a single word. It is about gay unions being equally recognized under the law as marriages. I don’t know how the religious right can be so thick-headed as to think that such a thing would damage traditional marriage and the traditional family. All that the homosexual population asks is that the LAW recognize gay marriages.
...View full comment »
Inconvenient facts
05/28/09 7:45am“ .. They just want us to recognize theirs ..”
Uh, minor details ..
Tradition of male-female marriage dates back to 5000 BC in China .. that’s a 7,000-year head-start ..
And about race? Uh .. in Prop. 8, most Asian-Americans and African-Americans voted NO ..
Uh .. BHO said no on homosexual marriage. Isn’t he always right?
As noted by Elton John — CIVIL UNIONS SUFFICIENT.
America
05/28/09 9:07amI could really care one way or the other — I just don’t understand why social conservatives don’t try to pick their fights. Gay marriage will be legal in 20 years in most, if not all, states due to each coming generation’s growing acceptance and the fact that the baby boomers will be dying off en masse. And the younger generations really will look at us as we do those who think blacks shouldn’t marry whites. If you look at the big picture, it’s completely a losing argument.
They should be focusing their efforts on other abominations — like rock and roll music and men with long hair!
05/28/09 9:55amI think that on both sides of the debate there is confusion between civil marriage and a marriage in a church. Both sides need to wake up and realize that they are not the same thing.
Grace
05/28/09 11:38amThis fight is about more than a word, SN. In the country, “separate but equal” went out the door with Plessy v. Ferguson and that’s exactly what civil unions are, a separate albeit equal institution.
The definition of marriage has shifted over time (from financial to romantic motives) and will continue to do so until all Americans are granted the rights they deserve, without the second class status of civil unions.