There are times in my job when I feel like I am pounding my head against the wall. I wonder why I bother. One example would be class the Monday morning after the Super Bowl. I could be tap dancing on the ceiling, and most of my students would have the same blank stare on their faces (isn’t it weird that with all the diversity that SMG brings, you all look identical with a blank stare? The blank stare may be a universal, unifying human quality upon which we could build world peace. But that is another blog).
But then, miraculously, I have a day like today. Today, when within a thirty minute time span I received half a dozen emails from former students, all linking me to articles about the same court decision. These emails came only moments after the Court announced its monumental decision, so it means that my students were paying attention to the world (victory 1), remembered what we talked about in class (victory 2), recognized that the decision was important to what we talked about in class (victory 3), and felt it was important enough to bother to tell me (victory 4). At the risk of sounding cheesy, this is exactly why I do this job. Getting through to students, having some piece of knowledge invade their being, seeing them thinking about the law and its role in society. It is truly rewarding and literally made my day.
The other thing that made my day was the decision that they all emailed me about. Today the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that California’s Proposition 8 is unconstitutional. Technically, the 9th Circuit affirmed the trial court’s ruling that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional. Here is some background, if you don’t know:
Proposition 8 was a referendum that was approved by voters in California several years ago. It stated that marriage can only be between a man and a woman; hence, it banned same sex marriage. Technically, Prop 8 amended the California Constitution to ban same sex marriage. Without getting dragged into the long procedural history of the case, the opponents of same sex marriage originally passed a statute through the legislature in California banning same sex marriage. That statute was found to be in violation of the state Constitution, so it was invalidated. At that point, the only way to enforce a ban on same sex marriage in California was to change the constitution to allow the ban. Hence, Proposition 8.
Once the ban was in place, it was challenged under the federal constitution. Like all lawsuits, it began in the federal trial court. Instead of deciding the legal question of Prop 8’s constitutionality by merely looking at precedent, the trial judge took the unusual step in this type of case to hold a trial. It was a bench trial, so there was no jury. The judge heard testimony from many same sex couples, as well as just a few “experts” on marriage. The judge then issued a written decision that said that Prop 8 violated both the equal protection clause and the due process clause of the U.S. Constitution. That decision was appealed to the 9th Circuit, and we got the ruling today.
Regardless of your views on same sex marriage, this decision has brought what was a California issue to the national stage. It is very possible that the Supreme Court will take the appeal of today’s decision as soon as next year. For the first time the Supremes would address what I think is the civil rights issue of our/your generation. If the Supremes don’t take the case, which is possible because the 9th Circuit limited its reasoning to what happened in California, it means that the large state of California will join the five other states that already allow same sex marriage. The decision is a tide-changer.
When I first started teaching this issue, the only thing we had was Goodridge, the decision that legalized same sex marriage in Massachusetts. I always started class the same way, because I think the question sets up the legal/ethical divide best: when I say marriage, what image pops into your head? The vast majority of us think of marriage in terms of a social, religious, or cultural institution. We imagine white dresses, churches, chuppahs, rings and parties. But technically marriage is a legal institution, a three party contract between the state and two spouses; so even if our society, religion or culture doesn’t want to condone same sex marriage, the law must follow the Constitution. So our ethics and the law push and pull each other.
What do you think of when I say marriage?
p.s. In case you think I am getting too big for my britches, I fully expect to go back to blank stares tomorrow.
8 Comments
Alexandria Chong posted on February 8, 2012 at 11:17 am
Professor Spooner,
If you ever think you’re not making an impact, I just want you to know that the conversation we had in the beginning of Fall 2011 semester is the reason why I decided to add Law as one of my concentrations.
In terms of when you ask what I see when I think about marriage? I see someone who will be there through not only the good but the bad. It’s someone who can put you above themself always, in any situation. The fact that the law tries tells us who that person can or can’t be is a completely warped idea. I don’t see marriage as either a social, religious, or cultural institution. I see it as just the last step in telling the world that you’re together. It’s a nice gesture and something most people want but it isn’t completely necessary to be happy I don’t believe. There are so many couples who have never got married and couldn’t be happier and doing any better. So if the law has the nerve to tell people who their spouse can or can’t be then so be it, people will still fight against it and its the right thing to do, but people are still going to fall in love and be with whoever they want. That’s an inherent trait that comes with being human I think. That ruling was 100% correct.
Hope Blalock posted on February 9, 2012 at 6:39 pm
I honestly think that Zach Wahls says it all:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yMLZO-sObzQ
Julianne Kodack posted on February 10, 2012 at 12:50 am
Professor Spooner,
When the word marriage or the subject comes up, I think it is unity of two people who love each other and who are willing to spend the rest of their lives together. It does not matter the gender of the people it just matters that they care so much about the other person they are making a commitment to be there for one another, through death do us part. Seeing how my parents and grandparents love one other so much and through marriage only became a stronger unit, makes me realize that everyone should be able to have that chance to get married and experience the unity it creates, regardless of gender. I think the ruling was correct and every state should be allow same sex marriage.
Spencer Li posted on February 10, 2012 at 11:18 am
When I think marriage, I think a man and a woman promising to serve each other for the rest of their lives.
Commenting about the law:
I believe that same sex marriage laws ultimately come down to the question whether or not laws are influenced by morals. Looking at the cons, there could potentially be increased taxes for everyone since there would be more marriage couples. Most of the concern, however, is whether or not it is morally right for a man to marry another man (and a woman with another woman) and then whether the law should be affected by morals.
As a student, I find it extremely difficult to argue that there be a ban on gay marriage. My generation has been moving away from the “traditional” upbringing my parents had and we get to form our own opinions. It is easy to say that “same sex marriage doesn’t hurt anyone who is straight” or “everyone should deserve to be with someone they love”. But growing up in a church, I understand that some Christians believe that gay marriage as a sin is just as bad as stealing.
To avoid rambling anymore, I’ll just restate my initial point. I feel that in order to answer the question “should same sex marriage be allowed”, we must first answer for ourselves, “to what extent should laws be affected by morals”.
Jinfeng Cai posted on February 11, 2012 at 3:31 pm
In a simple way, marriage could just be two spouses who love each other and commit to serve each other for the rest of their life. However, things could be way more complicated than this. In some eastern countries, same sex marriage is a very sensitive and serious issue. It’s not only about two men or women love each other and want to live together forever, I also connected with religious belief, values, families as well as the society as a whole.
Sarah Hu posted on February 13, 2012 at 3:47 pm
From the comments, it seems marriage means something different for everyone. There are similarities; everyone seems to agree that it’s dependent on one’s beliefs, and it’s almost like a lifestyle.
Viewing it as a belief, marriage particulars being a lifestyle, means that this should be left up to the person, just as how other specifics of a lifestyle are left to the individual to decide.
‘Legalization’ (or perhaps making it not illegal) gives people the right to decide how they want to life their lives, and who they want to spend it with. Understandably, they could still do so (ignoring tax/estate issues related) without marriage, but that just proves that this is not something that is, nor should be controlled by legislation.
Sophie Park posted on February 29, 2012 at 3:31 pm
Growing up within the church, I have only had traditional views of marriage: a man taking a woman to be his wife.
However, with the increasingly democratic stance that our generation takes, I see the benefits of allowing same sex marriage. With as many as half of marriages ending in divorce, families now are more broken than an actual family. Although a man and a man, or woman and woman, are not your traditional parents, having same sex couples may bring a better generation of happier children who aren’t brought up in broken families.
Although this is an issue of the law, I feel that our generation is definitely moving towards a trend of accepting the same sex law.
download joker123 posted on May 3, 2020 at 6:14 am
Never part with your money until you are sure you can trust times. There can be a plethora of gambling websites to select from. For example, say you bet one unit in your hand and you “go to war”.