Ban Against Same-Sex Marriages Denied

Judge Richard Kramer of the San Francisco Superior Court ruled against a ban on same-sex marriage last Monday, March 14. According to Los Angeles Times and television news reports, the ruling was a great success for the gay community because it was the first of many legal rulings to come constitutionality on the state ban. Gay rights groups in California celebrated their victory as the word broke out. The ruling came in response filed by the city of San Francisco and a dozen same-sex couples one year ago, after the California Supreme Court halted a same-sex marriage spree that Mayor Gavin Newsom had initiated in February 2004. Apparently the mayor had no legal authority to issue 4,000 same-sex marriage licenses. Kramer argued that marriage is a basic human right that everyone should be entitled to. Member of the Gender-Sexuality Alliance Club, Keneisha Lopez said, "It's surprising that a Republican judge would give us a break." The judge's conclusion marked a crucial point in the ruling that the marriage law amounts to sex discrimination. The law denies citizens the basic human right to choose whom they can marry and ultimately discriminates on the basis of gender. Kramer's decision would eventually void Proposition 22, which was passed in 2000 with 61percent voters, stating that California would not recognize gay marriages performed in other states. Proposition 22 reaffirmed the state's definition of marriage as a union of a man and a woman which did not change the state Constitution.

The ruling does not mean that same-sex couples in California can immediately get married. The final word will not come from Judge Kramer himself, but from the State Supreme Court. The conclusive determination is yet to be made from initially legalizing same-sex marriage in California. "More states should legalize gay marriages," said Lopez. In recent months court decisions involving New York, Massachusetts and Washington State have ruled in favor of same-sex marriage. Although there are some that argue, there is no rational purpose for couples of the same-sex to be married with a strong belief that marriage is only to be between a man and a woman. "It sends the wrong message to youth. It's messing with nature," said Santa Monica College student Beverly Jackson. Also, society might not be comfortable with the idea of allowing couples of the same-sex to get married. "I agree with same-sex marriage completely. It is an intrusion of the government to control who one can have sex with," said SMC student Saladin Thomas. Some play the devil's advocate in not remaining completely loyal to one side of the heated argument. "For equality reasons I am for it. Everyone should be treated equally," said SMC student Jared Chu. In the eyes of many, matrimony was intended for procreation and should have its limitations and boundaries. If order is not withheld it would be hard to maintain a civilized society. The hot button debate involves the true intent of marriage and whether homosexual couples should be granted the same rights entitled to heterosexual couples. "I'm gay myself, I should have the same privilege as straight people," said Lopez. A current California law defines marriage as a union between one man and one woman only. A pair of bills are pending before the state's legislature, that if passed would place a Constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage before voters in the upcoming November 2005 elections. Even though the Constitution promotes equality for all, there are great social implications that exist in marriages where certain lines need to be drawn. Certain measures should be taken to ensure that the idea of marriage is not misconstrued. The customs and ethics in which the foundation of our country was established should be maintained.