Recently in California, a ruling was passed on gay marriage, removing the ban set by Proposition 8 in 2008. As Anna Gorman, stated in an article written for the Los Angeles Times, “Hundreds gathered for a rally in West Hollywood on Wednesday night to celebrate the ruling and to hear from the lawyers and plaintiffs who fought against Prop. 8 in federal court”. Despite the hundreds who celebrate and support the ruling, however, many people have risen up to contest this ruling unreasonably.

The proponents of Proposition 8 such as Dr. Laura Schlesinger, the host of the Dr. Laura Program, a famous radio show broadcasted in every state, state that homosexuality is against the will of God, and therefore it should be banned as immoral. However, as Professor Kauffman, a Professor Emeritus noted sagaciously in a correspondence with Dr. Laura Schlesinger, the Bible also states very clearly that those working on the Sabbath day should be put to death (Exodus 35:2), eating shellfish is an abomination (Leviticus 11:10), and that one may possess slaves both male and female provided they are both bought from neighbouring countries (Lev. 25:44, Kauffman). Therefore, should eating shellfish and working on the Sabbath day be made illegal? Should we allow our people to possess slaves from Mexico and Canada? And what of other religions? One bans the eating of pork, another bans the eating of beef. Therefore, should we shut down every cow and pig farm that exists in the United States? As we have all learned in our history classes, the first immigrants to the United States came for religious freedom; they came so that the principles of some religions would not be forced upon them. Since then, we have upheld our nation as a place of dreams, freedom and most importantly, a separation of church and state. It is understandable that some Christians may object to the idea of gay marriage, but they have no right to force the principles of their religion on others.

According to the case brief, defendants of Proposition 8 argued that gay marriage weakens the link between marriage and procreation (No C 09-2292 VRW). However, as Professor Greenman, a constitutional law professor at the University of Oregon Law School, eloquently stated in an article defending the judge’s decision to overrule Proposition 8, this argument is “like an island” – it cannot be linked to anything else but itself (Greenman). Although it may be true that gay marriage weakens the link between procreation and marriage, opponents of gay marriage have made no move to ban marriage between heterosexuals who choose not to, or cannot, have children. The argument’s inconsistencies fail to make it effective.

On the other hand, the arguments for gay marriage are based on subjects more solid than faith and long-standing prejudices: they are based on the rights our Constitution promises us. The rights to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” stated in the Bill of Rights can alone defend the right of those who choose gay marriage.

Whether homosexual love is a choice or a natural occurrence, we may never know. What we can be assured of for now, though, is the fact that homosexuals have as much of a right to marry as any of us.


Works Cited
Gorman, Anna. "Hundreds Gather for a Rally in West Hollywood to Celebrate Prop. 8 Ruling." Los Angeles Times 4 Aug. 2010. Print.
Greenman, John. "The Proposition 8 Ruling: What the Judge Got Right about Morality." OregonLive.com. 13 Aug. 2010. Web. 4 Sept. 2010. <http://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2010/08/the_proposition_8_ruling_what.html>.
Kauffman, James M. Message to Laura Schlesinger. May 2000. E-mail.
No C 09-2292 VRW. United States District Court for the Northern District of California. Ce9.uscourts.gov. 8 Jan. 2010. Web. 4 Sept. 2010. <http://www.ce9.uscourts.gov/prop8/FF_CL_Final.pdf>.