Judge Walker’s Ruling on Prop 8
Aug. 5, 2010
While most in the LGBT community are rejoicing over Judge Walker’s ruling that Prop 8 is unconstitutional, I am not rejoicing. First of all, I have read writings questioning Judge Walker’s impartiality because he himself is gay, stating that the ruling would have carried more weight coming from a straight judge. Now, I would hope that judges would be impartial no matter what, but I have seen far too many “activist judges” and “legislating from the bench,” so I don’t want to completely dismiss those concerns.
Rachel Maddow’s reaction to the Prop 8 ruling mentioned that people come to America “for the religious liberties.” The great irony in all of this “equal marriage for all” debate is that those who believe in plural marriage are not able to legally pursue their own religious liberties.
My issue with celebrating this ruling is this: If you are in favor of same-sex marriage, why are you not in favor of plural marriage? If one is fighting for equal marriage rights for all, shouldn’t “all” really mean “all” and not just one’s own group? The very language used in the ruling, referring to marriage as something “couples” do, is discriminatory in its face. Why can only “couples” marry? Why is plural marriage not a legal option? If we want marriage to be inclusive, we shouldn’t set limits that favor what we want.
I used to want same-sex marriage, and then polyamory, and by extension I was in favor of plural marriage, but now I just try to think of what is fair and equitable and best for society. If we want to make the standard of marriage as one man and one woman, fine. If we want to be all-inclusive, fine. But then “all” must really mean “all” and “inclusive” must really mean “inclusive.” Plural marriage must be considered in the equation.
While most in the LGBT community are rejoicing over Judge Walker’s ruling that Prop 8 is unconstitutional, I am not rejoicing. First of all, I have read writings questioning Judge Walker’s impartiality because he himself is gay, stating that the ruling would have carried more weight coming from a straight judge. Now, I would hope that judges would be impartial no matter what, but I have seen far too many “activist judges” and “legislating from the bench,” so I don’t want to completely dismiss those concerns.
Rachel Maddow’s reaction to the Prop 8 ruling mentioned that people come to America “for the religious liberties.” The great irony in all of this “equal marriage for all” debate is that those who believe in plural marriage are not able to legally pursue their own religious liberties.
My issue with celebrating this ruling is this: If you are in favor of same-sex marriage, why are you not in favor of plural marriage? If one is fighting for equal marriage rights for all, shouldn’t “all” really mean “all” and not just one’s own group? The very language used in the ruling, referring to marriage as something “couples” do, is discriminatory in its face. Why can only “couples” marry? Why is plural marriage not a legal option? If we want marriage to be inclusive, we shouldn’t set limits that favor what we want.
I used to want same-sex marriage, and then polyamory, and by extension I was in favor of plural marriage, but now I just try to think of what is fair and equitable and best for society. If we want to make the standard of marriage as one man and one woman, fine. If we want to be all-inclusive, fine. But then “all” must really mean “all” and “inclusive” must really mean “inclusive.” Plural marriage must be considered in the equation.
No comments:
Post a Comment