My World Earth: New Battle on California Ban against same sex marriage.Some argue is racial bias law some said marriage is heterosexual event.

Tuesday, January 12, 2010

New Battle on California Ban against same sex marriage.Some argue is racial bias law some said marriage is heterosexual event.

Gay Couples going to Federal Court.Majority like marriage be a heterosexual couple and not same sex. Marriage should potential have children unlike same sex marriage which adoption of children will cause other legal issues.“Our founding fathers would be rolling over in their graves if they heard that the Constitution guarantees the right to redefine marriage. This is absurd.”

Thousands of same-sex couples await the outcome of the case

Americans could be forced to accept the legality of “gay marriage” in all 50 states of the union, depending on the outcome of an historic federal court battle that began in California yesterday.

The hearing in San Francisco — which was supposed to have been shown on YouTube before a decision by the Supreme Court to block the video feed — comes after 52 per cent of Californians voted to ban same-sex unions in 2008 with a ballot named Proposition 8.

The measure — which annulled a previous decision by the Californian Supreme Court and resulted in a change to the state’s constitution to read that “only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognised” — provoked street protests in Los Angeles and accusations that the initiative had been largely funded by the Mormon Church.

Proposition 8 also invalidated the unions of thousands of same-sex couples who had already wed in the Golden State.

Opponents of Proposition 8 now claim that the measure violates the higher authority of the US Constitution because it discriminates against gays. Vaughn Walker, a federal court judge, has agreed to hear the case, based on his opinion that “gay marriage” is a constitutional issue.

By taking the issue to a federal level there is much to lose for both sides. If the case gets passed up to the US Supreme Court in Washington — as expected — the ultimate ruling will be final.

It could result in legalised same-sex unions across the US in spite of the majority being against them, an outcome that would heighten America’s deep cultural divisions. Alternatively, the issue could be taken off the agenda permanently, with gays denied the opportunity to “marry” for the foreseeable future.

Supporters of Proposition 8 say that the case should never have been heard by a federal court. “This lawsuit is an attempt by Judge Walker to put the voters of California on trial and it’s wrong,” said Brian Brown, director of the National Organisation for Marriage, which opposes same-sex unions.

“Our founding fathers would be rolling over in their graves if they heard that the Constitution guarantees the right to redefine marriage. This is absurd.”

Supporters of same-sex unions say that the case will be an opportunity to enlighten the public. “Discrimination hurts us and doesn’t help anyone,” said Jennifer Pizer, Director of Lambda Legal’s national marriage project. “The trial will offer a chance for the public to listen to the expert witnesses on both sides .” Ms Pizer added that “people have so many misconceptions and misunderstandings about gay people and what sexual orientation is all about”.

The court case comes after several high-profile setbacks for gay unions in America. On Thursday, New Jersey rejected a Bill authorising civil unions, as did New York state a few weeks earlier.

Only five US states today permit civil unions: Iowa, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Vermont and New Hampshire.

California's ban on gay marriage goes to trial on Monday in a federal case that plaintiffs hope to take all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court and overturn bans throughout the nation.

Victory for gay rights groups in the Supreme Court, which might not choose to take the case if it is appealed that far, would make marriage a fundamental constitutional right without exception and overturn laws and state amendments limiting marriage to a man and a woman in 40 states.

A loss in the top court, two ranks above the action that starts on Monday, would derail efforts to win in state courts that have been a hallmark of the gay rights movement thus far.

The case begins in a San Francisco court presided over by District Court Chief Judge Vaughn Walker, who clearly enjoyed preliminary sessions, joking with lawyers between barrages of pointed questions.

The United States is divided on gay marriage. It is legal in only five states, although most of those, and the District of Columbia, approved it last year.

The approval of California's Prop 8 in November 2008 was a sweet victory for social conservatives in a state with a liberal, trend-setting reputation and showed off the resounding success conservatives have had at the ballot box on the issue.

California's top court had legalized gay marriage in the summer of 2008, months before Prop 8 passed.

Gay rights lawyers in the case describe their battle as a continuation of the fight against racist laws that had stopped whites and blacks from marrying. Marriage is a fundamental constitutional right and, in addition, gays and lesbians deserve special protection from discrimination, they say.

The lawyers defending the ban say long traditions limit marriage to heterosexual couples and that a state, without malice, can be cautious about changing the institution. Heterosexual couples can have children, which society needs to continue, they add.

While a court battle to the Supreme Court would stretch over years, the trial beginning on Monday may take only two weeks.

GAY PARENTS

"Issues about parents and children and the role of child rearing will be central to this case," said Joan Hollinger, a lecturer in family law at the University of California, Berkeley.

The lack of societal acceptance of same-sex marriages was a problem for children of those relationships -- an argument for allowing gay marriage, she said.

Ted Olson and David Boies, two high-powered lawyers who faced off over the legality of George W. Bush's election win as U.S. president against Al Gore in 2000, have joined forces in an odd-couple team fighting for gay marriage.

Andrew Koppelman, a professor of constitutional law at Northwestern University, said an appeal is certain no matter who wins in court in San Francisco.

If the appeals court were to side with the ban, the Supreme Court would probably leave it, but a victory by the gay rights advocates in the appeals court would force the Supreme Court to act, since it could not ignore such a momentous change.

"There is no way to keep this out of the Supreme Court if they win," said Koppelman, who has written books arguing in favor of same-sex marriage but sees this push as ill-timed due to the composition of the nine-member top court.

"Who are going to be your five votes on the Supreme Court? I have trouble getting to one."

---