On the heels of last week's landmark ruling in California uplifting the ban on "Gay Marriage" in California, eight states with anti-gay amendments to their Constitution (plus two without) have filed "friends" of the court briefs with the California Supreme Court asking for a "stay" on the controversial ruling.
In any legal proceeding third parties are entitled to submit a legal brief to a court in the event they have a vested interest in any ruling handed down in the United States.
In sum, the "friendly" parties (oh yeah!) are asking that California's Supreme Court "stay" the controversial ruling until a fall election when the voters are expected to weigh in on the issues.
A "stay" - for those of you in the dark about such matters - would essentially "freeze" the court's decision on "gay marriage". And, in the event of such a hold, California gay couples would be barred from marrying in the State of California until it was "lifted", if ever.
In support of their arguments, Ron Prentice - the Chairman of a coalition sponsoring the proposed California Marriage Protection Act (anti-gay measure) - said he applauds the interlopers for stepping in and pledging their support.
"Redefining marriage will affect the entire nation, not just California. There is no good reason for these four judges to create nationwide chaos (!) when a ballot measure to reverse the decision is pending before the voters," Prentice stridently argued to the media.
Judges have been causing "chaos" for decades, why should they stop now at his say so?
Fortunately, Attorney General Brown has also stepped into the fray and submitted his own brief in support of "denying the stay".
At the conclusion of the legalese set forth in support of his position, he stated for the record,
"It is time for these proceedings to end."
The Justices have until June 16th to grant or deny the request. However, in special circumstances, the court is entitled to extend the deadline to allow for a proper adjudication of the issues.
San Francisco attorney Dennis Herrera (who was a legal representative for couples in the action that caused the brouhaha) is vehemently opposed to the petition for the "stay" and was quick to condemn the action,
"The court's decision firmly establishes there is a fundamental right to marriage equality for same-sex couples in bringing the lawsuit that led to the court's 4-3 decision. To deny that fundamental right based on speculation about what might happen in November is terribly inappropriate."
If the "stay" is denied, California's gay couples may proceed to their local City Hall to register for their marriage licenses as soon as June 17th, God willing.
Personally, I haven't taken a stand on the issue of "gay marriage", yet.
The issue is a dilemma for me because I was raised a Christian and I am a practicing Catholic. Moreover, I endeavour to adhere to the scriptures as much as possible in my day-to-day affairs.
However, I'd be the first to admit that I am weak, not perfect. Obviously, or I wouldn't be traversing this mortal coil with the rest of the likes of you!
If you ask me, the ten commandments - per se - are just common sense.
By following the "golden rules" - as they relate to a moral and ethical code of standard to abide by, in particular - it is wholly possible (in my humble opinion) to attain true harmony among the nations and peoples of the world one day.
And, what is wrong with that?
But, the tough scripture to fathom is that which pertains to the issue of homosexuality, and for good reason.
I may be inclined to argue - for instance - that whenever there is overpopulation in a handful of species on the planet, the sexual proclivities swing bisexual or gay to compensate for the imbalance.
Is man immune from the laws of nature? I hazard a guess that the answer is an unequivocal "no".
In fact, there have been a number of reputable studies by prominent scientists in specialized fields who have determined that Nature's influence is surely intertwined with the sphere of human sexuality, as well.
One study noted a trend that was particularly startling. In a scenario where three or four boys were born into one family unit, oftentimes the youngest male turned out to be "gay".
Why?
Scientists theorized that since there were a sufficient number of straight males born into the family to successfully guarantee the bloodline would "carry on", that there was no need for the last of the offspring to offer up his "seed" for the cause. So, nature's control mechanism stepped in.
Makes one wonder - was the need for "curbing" the population greater than that of sustaining procreation - in those instant cases?
Clearly, the argument that "homosexuality" is a force of nature itself - and not a freak or perverse occurrence - is a compelling one, isn't it?
As to the issue of the scriptures - well, I for one - have to take pause to question whether the verses condemning homosexuality as an abomination in the eyes of the Lord are truly the "words" of God.
After all, it is a known fact that throughout history - Church leaders and Monarchs alike - often manipulated (maybe even tinkered with) the sacred texts to meet their agendas.
If I knew that God truly said that homosexuality was a "sin" - then I would concur, logically thereafter - that a union of marriage between two males (or two women)would surely be an abomination in the presence of the Lord.
But, in view of the fact God's hands appear to have been a force behind nature's natural tendency to influence procreation in the subtle manifestations aforementioned, I find it difficult to accept the hateful arguments that the religious fundamentalists put forth in support of their un-christian-like position.
Notwithstanding, God created man with the capacity to love.
In view of the fact nature appears to have set mankind on a path of preservation, isn't it normal to concede that the Lord may likewise desire that lone males or females part 'n parcel to his cosmic plan outside the heterosexual scheme of things also share in the joy of a meaningful loving relationship with another sentient being?
I guess I'll just sleep on it. Alone!
No comments:
Post a Comment