Gay Marriage: Constitutional or Not?

Gay Marriage: Constitutional or Not?

Introduction

The issues of gay marriage are probably the most controversial among all in today's American society. A close analysis of the history reveals that “homosexuality” has always been regarded as a deviation from the societal norms and has long been rejected by the society. However, in modern societies i.e. the Europeans and Americans are gradually moving in the direction of recognizing same-sex relations. The vitality of the issue is further enhanced with the growing number of court cases and lawsuits on gay marriages.

A prime example on the subject is the famous “Perry v. Schwarzenegger” case that was decided by the Court of Appeals February 7th, 2012. The 3 judge appellate panel held that California's Proposition 8 amended the constitution of the state through a ballot. It restricted marriages to opposite-sex couples as unconstitutional.

Discussion

Perry v. Schwarzenegger

In 2009, Alameda County Clerk-Registrar, Mr. Patrick O'Connell denied Kristin Perry and Sandra Steir; a marriage license because the interested parties belong to the same sex. For the same reason in Los Angeles, Mr. Paul Katami and Jeffrey Zarrillo were not allowed to marry for the same reasons. Later, Kristin Perry sued the county clerks and some other state officials from the department of Public health. The court case is famously known as “Perry v. Schwarzenegger”.

Court Ruling

In the case Perry Vs Schwarzenegger, the Supreme Court of California upheld the Proposition 8 i.e. an amendment in the Constitution- approved by the voters which limit marriages to in between a woman and man. Despite the setback from the court, the advocates of gay marriage who had gotten married before the election were somewhat happy because the court had realized that application of the modified rules weren't was applicable to those people. The Supreme Court concluded the decision as:

"The Proposition 8 constitutes a legal permitted amendment unlike an impermissible constitutional revision that does not violate the division of powers principle. It is also not irrelevant under the “inalienable rights" theory put forward by the Attorney General. We further conclude that the Proposition 8 retroactively does not apply, and the marriages of same-sex couples carried out before the effective date of Proposition 8 remain valid” (Lavagnino, 2009).

Analysis

During the proceedings of the Perry Vs Schwarzenegger case, the Supreme Court of California had realized the growing public animosity towards the proposition 8. Hence, major legal changes to Proposition 8 and the Constitution came under speculation regarding gay marriage. It was decided that all the changes would take place with the help of a referendum.

If we closely analyze the case, I personally believe that the supporters of same-sex marriage believe that “the registration of marriage is a legal matter and should not be influenced by any religious norms” Similarly, in many modern states, the ecclesiastical and legal registration of the marriage contract takes place separately. According to Chauncey (2004), many proponents of same sex marriage firmly believe that the law of the land should follow the major social changes that lead ...