By Dominique Smith / Staff Writer
By Dominique Smith / Staff Writer
On Sept. 6, the war against same-sex marriage continued in the face of a new audience: the ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
The fight for same sex marriage is not something that popped up overnight. It has been an ongoing battle since the 1970s.
However, it still is a battle same-sex advocates have lost time and time again.
As it stands, only 39 states recognize marriage between a man and women, five states allow same-sex marriages, and six states have Defense of Marriage Act laws.
California is currently trying to be the sixth state to allow same-sex marriage.
So, what exactly is the problem with allowing same-sex couples to marry?
The premise is simple: to protect the sanctity of marriage.
On Charles Cooper’s website protect marriage.com, their mission statement states the following: “Protectmarriage.com is a broad-based coalition of California families, community leaders, religious leaders, pro-family organizations and individuals from all walks of life who have joined together to defend and restore the definition of marriage as between a man and a women.”
It seems that Prop 8 has a hidden agenda: To bully their neighbors, their children’s school teachers, crossing guards, officers of the law, state officials and even their own family members.
The divorce rate in the nation is estimated to fall around 50 percent, meaning that every one out of two marriages fail.
If anyone should protect the sanctity of marriage, shouldn’t that target be the concept of divorce?
In 1991, a study was done on 13,000 children affected by divorce, and the findings showed that they experienced more difficulty in schools, behavioral problems, negative self-concepts, and an increase in problems with peers, as well as problems in getting along with their parents.
For an initiative claiming they want to protect marriage, they seem to be attacking the wrong enemy.
In 1911, Representative Seaborne Roddenberry of Georgia tried to introduce a constitutional amendment to ban that act of interracial marriage, stating that “intermarriage between whites and blacks is repulsive and adverse to every sentiment of pure American spirit. It is abhorrent and repugnant.”
Maybe no one is alarmed by Prop 8 because they are saying it in a much nicer way.
In 1959, Mildred Jeter and Richard Loving, an interracial couple, were arrested from their home in the early morning and forced apart by the state of Virginia because they had violated this law.
People have a problem with the happiness of others, especially if it doesn’t coincide with their beliefs.
In the five months same-sex marriage was legal in California, approximately 18,000 people made the commitment to be married.
Now, however, the rest of California’s same-sex couples await their day at the altar.
The ninth District Court of appeals has 90 days to make a decision on whether or not Judge Vaughn R. Walker’s ban on Prop 8 is constitutional because of its violation of the 14th amendment.
On the 40th Anniversary of the Mildred Loving case, Loving wrote, “The majority believed that what the judge said, that it was God’s plan to keep people apart, and that government should discriminate against people in love. The older generation’s fears and prejudices have given way and today’s young people realize that if someone loves someone they have the right to marry.”
52 years ago, Loving fought for her right to marry the person she loved, much like same-sex couples are trying to do today.
To allow others the opportunity of achieving happiness shouldn’t provoke this much of a fight.
It should be a natural occurrence. America still has a lot of growing up to do.
If the court rules in favor of Charles Cooper and the Prop 8 initiative, it will be another mudslide in the ongoing rock climb for not only gay rights, but for civil liberties as well.