A Marriage Made in Heaven?

While the Class of 2008 was preparing to walk across the graduation stage to their future, a couple of weeks ago the California Supreme Court ruled, 4-3, to legalize same sex marriages. Gay couples can begin the marriage application process next week.

This wedge issue in the culture wars gives us an opportunity to review some terms as we reflect on our values. Article IV of the Constitution states that "full faith and credit" must be given to the laws, records and court decisions of other states.

However, for more than a decade, conservative activists have erected a series of legal barriers to prevent one state's move toward recognizing gay marriages from setting in motion a national wave. In 1996 they won passage of the federal Defense of Marriage Act, which said that same-sex marriages performed in states that allow them do not have to be honored by the federal government or other states.

Bans on gay marriages are expected to face legal challenges

And they won laws in 42 states to limit marriage to a man and a woman. In 27 of them, these are constitutional amendments that cannot be overridden by judges or lawmakers.

Marriage is also a reserved power of the states (10th Amendment). Both by court decisions, now California and previously ruled Massachusetts, legalize same sex marriage. Massachusetts' ruling limited marriage rights to that state, California's ruling is more broad. That may make this a ruling a center piece in the 2008 presidential election.

Should we get fired up over this issue again? A new poll finds that for the first time in the state's history, a slim majority of voters supports same-sex marriage, which the state Supreme Court declared legal this month.

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/state/20080528-9999-1n28field.html

In 2004, George W. Bush won 11 states that also passed "Protection of Marriage" referendums. It was one of karl Rove's winning strategies. One wonders whether if this change election will wind up being more of the same.

Opponents in California are pondering a constitutional amendment to counter the court’s decision. Gay and lesbian activists are now setting their sights onto a larger platform. Prepare yourself for an onslaught of talking heads, each with their own authoritative angle. Richard Kim, in The Nation, suggestions that rational thought will disarm culture war.

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080609/kim

The 2 Regular Guys at CBS2School offer a primer on marriage here:

"Marriage as we know it in the United States is based on the model established by Protestant reformer John Calvin in Geneva in the year 1546. Geneva was to be the model city. This model would later be used by Puritans coming to the New World. In 1546 Geneva officials passed the Marriage Ordinance, a comprehensive policy explaining the purpose and affect of marriage on a civil society.

The Ordinance, written by Calvin, began by establishing “God as the founder” of marriage. Marriage was seen as a covenant, built not only upon the laws of God but the laws of nature. Therefore, marriage was to be between a man and a women. For our purposes the more interesting point is the fusion between church and state. In the Ordinance Calvin discussed “ . . . the dual requirements of state registration and church consecration to constitute marriage.” It is this point which snags our debate today.

Some would argue that a solution to our current debate may be found when we remember that a marriage is made in heaven and not inside a government building.

It would seem that we have resolved the issue over the distribution of rights as it relates to monogamous couples, gay or straight. The issue today is over the word “marriage.” Who is its protector?

History suggests this is a church - state issue. A consensus has been built separating these two important spheres. "

Graduates and seniors to be chime in, when you get married will marriage still be exclusively between a man and a women? Or is the institution about to change? Should it change?