Truemors
is reporting from
Member
NP Rank:
NP Rank:
Cultural Battle Divides US: Supreme Court Hears Prop 8 Arguments
Share:
by Rhonda J Mangus | March 5, 2009 at 12:11 pm
346 views | 59 Recommendations | 7 comments
Videos
On November 4, 2008, California voters passed an amendment to the state's Constitution, Proposition 8 (Prop 8), that restricted marriage to a man and a woman. Demonstrations and protests followed across the state and the nation, creating a cultural battle that appears to be dividing the United States.
Social conservatives and liberals both consider California a trendsetter that could shape the same-sex marriage agenda, even though an overwhelming majority of U.S. states have laws stopping gay couples from wedding. Groups representing both sides have turned the legal fight into a broad cultural question.
Gay marriage opponents said overturning the California ban would change the nature of state government by gutting the people's right to make law.
The court would create "a sweeping power, vested in the least-democratic branch, that overrides the precious right of the people to determine how they will be governed," same-sex marriage opponents said in papers filed with the court.
Gay marriage proponents, including former Governor and current California Attorney General Jerry Brown, argue that the right to marry is part of the "inalienable right" to liberty, so the state Supreme Court must strike down an amendment to the constitution limiting it.
"What hangs in the balance is equality and justice for all," National Center for Lesbian Rights Executive Director Kate Kendell told reporters before the arguments.
The court will hear three hours of arguments today and have 90 days to issue an opinion. If the Supreme Court overturns Prop 8, same-sex couples would again be permitted to marry in California.
Also on NowPublic Proposition 8 Special News Coverage, here.
Advertisement
What is NowPublic?
NowPublic lets people work together to cover news events around the world.
Crowd Power
Rhonda J Mangus
North Tonawanda, New York, United States
Recommendations (59)
Jordan Yerman
Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
Jarrett Martineau
Vancouver, CanadaAnonymous user
Babel-Fish
Negros Oriental, Philippines
mtammas
Vancouver, Canada
Uwe Paschen
Narita, Chiba, Japan
Amy Judd
Vancouver, Canada
Most RecentMost Recommended Comments (7)
at 13:10 on March 5th, 2009
You are very welcome, Cypresso! Thank you for reading, commenting, and for the recommendation!
It seems that the "California Supreme Court signals mixed response to Proposition 8". abclocal video, "Justices hear Proposition 8 arguments" is available, here.
Thanks again!
at 13:30 on March 5th, 2009
Hi, Esta! Thanks for reading, commenting, and for the recommendation! I think it has been said that "Everyone can be bought for the right price". I don't believe it!:)
- Sign In or Join to post comments
Jarrett Martineauat 13:32 on March 5th, 2009
Here's hoping that equal rights for all is the outcome.
at 14:24 on March 5th, 2009
Jarrett, thank you for reading, commenting, and for the recommendation! I hope, too, that equal rights is the outcome for all. However, I am finding the idea that people have to clamor for rights to which they are already entitled by the United States Constitution and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and in a so-called democracy, very disturbing, to say the least.
at 16:22 on March 5th, 2009
Keep us updated if you can Rhonda!
at 16:41 on March 5th, 2009
Hi, Amy! Thank you for reading, commenting, and for the recommendation! I will most certainly try to keep everyone updated. However, as following this story has shown itself to be a most concerted effort on the part of several NowPublic authors, I don't mind if anyone wants to add additional updates in the comment section of this story or, if necessary, highlight additional stories. Thanks again!
at 20:47 on March 5th, 2009
I can understand humans wanting equality, that no sexual gender should be given less rights but equal right but not more rights.
I value marriage it gives legal ties between a woman and a man that should be fairer than they are at present.
The whole point of marriage was geared to the support of a woman and children this tradition dates back to when man was the only provider and the woman the home maker and the mother.
Religion made it a holy event. later laws took the need out of the need to seek a religious ceremony.
The problem is that gay couples now want the security of a modern day marriage. Religions think the only way a marriage can be truthfully be solemnized is by a priest.
Marriage to them relates to a normal hetrosexual relationship that will produce children into a religious community. Still geared to the support of a woman and children by the head of the household, the husband.
Same sex marriage would not fit into the accepted tradishinal understanding of what the word marriage means. It has to have a husband and a wife and it must be a union of which marriage was really intended a tie or a bonding agreement for breeding couples to produce a family.
This tradition is thousands and thousands of years old. Gays are going to find that they will never get a same sex marriage to be accepted.
Its the wrong argument as there is to much religion ans religious bias-ness in this crazy world.
The right argument will throw any dispute out of the widow.
It's logical simple..
Its a Legal union between two people of the same sex, granted the same or similar values of a legal marriage. You only need to give the union a name other than marriage.
Coupling or union or some completely new term and treat it as a legal agreement.