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.