Home » Opinion » Editorials
Protecting marriage: Voters try to, courts don't get it
A federal court decision affirming its overruling of California voters on the subject of gay marriage was hailed by one of the lawyers involved last week as “a great step forward toward the day when everyone will be able to marry the person they love.’’
“Everyone?’’
That is part of the objection to raising the status of gay civil unions to that of a marriage.
The 9th Circuit Court had it wrong when it overturned California voters in 2008.
“Proposition 8 serves no purpose, and has no effect,’’ the 2-1 majority ruled, “other than to lessen the status and human dignity of gay men and lesbians in California.’’
No. What California voters were doing, in fact, was to make sure that the special and important status of marriage — the union of one man and one woman that has been recognized by society for thousands of years — is not lessened.
California voters were doing nothing different than have the voters in any other state where the issue has been put directly to them. More than 30 states specifically protect traditional marriage, North Carolina voters being the most recent to overwhelmingly do so this spring.
Judge Diarmuid O’Scannlain, joined by two Circuit 9 dissenters who wanted to rehear the case, noted that even President Obama claims to want to allow the individual states to decide “in a respectful way” whether to okay gay marriage.
“Today our court has silenced any such respectful conversation,” wrote O’Scannlain. According to the LA Times, O’Scannlain complained that the 9th Circuit’s refusal to review the case endorsed a view that “animus must have been the only conceivable motivation for a sovereign state to have remained committed to a definition of marriage that has existed for millennia.”
“Even worse,” O’Scannlain said, “we have overruled the will of 7 million California Proposition 8 voters.”
- Page One Editorial: Control of NH’s future: Today’s House vote will be one for the ages - 17
- Consider Nevada: Gambling always expands - 9
- Missing the point: The IRS scandal and state power - 27
- Helping panhandlers: A method worth trying in Manchester - 7
- For the people: A century of the NH primary - 0
- What innovation? The casino way is the lazy way - 10
- Not so merry: Giving Robin Hood a bad name - 4
- Disengaged: Obama's lousy excuse - 15
- Underestimating NH: Gun control picks two wrong targets - 35
Mayor development: Growth and a Manchester city office
READER COMMENTS: 0- Warwick Mills scores $94.3 million contract from Army for body armor - 0
- Senate OKs medical pot, with plenty of restrictions - 0
- Rangers win in overtime, stay alive for Game 5 - 0
- Hanefeld shoots 74 at Senior PGA - 0
- Bishop Libasci to ordain 2 at St. Joseph Cathedral - 0
- Price tag to restore chimney about $1m - 0
- Officials disallow Woodmont slide show - 0
- Officials question Nashua parking proposal - 0
- House bill lowers emissions cap to meet RGGI standards - 1



