 "Photo: AP")
"...Moral or social equality between the different races...does not in fact exist, and never can. The God of nature made it otherwise, and no human law can produce it, and no human tribunal can enforce it. There are gradations and classes throughout the universe. From the tallest archangel in Heaven, down to the meanest reptile on earth, moral and social inequalities exist, and must continue to exist throughout all eternity," – Georgia Supreme Court, 1869.
The argument that interracial marriages are immoral and damaging to the social well-being was neither insensitive nor unreasonable for the majority of America's history.
While many people today may be closet bigots and have similar views to the Georgia Supreme Court justices of 1869, it is safe to say this opinion is far from politically correct. In fact, a statement such as this would be the end of any contemporary American politician's career.
This kind of thought mirrors the current debate of same-sex marriage.
The arguments against same-sex marriage are tired and outdated. Most have a religious connotation and should not be defensible by today's standard of justice and equality.
Although justice for homosexuals in California was temporarily served Tuesday after the state's Ninth Circuit Court reversed Proposition 8, which banned same-sex marriage, the debate is far from over.
Because Proposition 8, which was passed by a slim 52 percent in 2008, was decided by a 3 panel court, its proponents will appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court, in which they will have another opportunity to argue the case again in front of all the judges on the court.
The assenting opinion stated "Proposition 8 serves no purpose and has no effect other than to lessen the status and human dignity of gays and lesbians in California, and to officially reclassify their relationships and families as inferior to those of opposite-sex couples."
The court, however, was reluctant to make its decision reflect the issue nationally. The focus of the decision was clearly, and intentionally, specific to California's legislative needs.
If the U.S. Supreme Court grants and hears the case, it will be a huge step toward accomplishing equal marriage rights for all Americans, not just Californians.
According to www.supremecourt.gov, the Court receives around 10,000 petitions per year and only accepts about 75-80 cases. Because of this, many legal experts highly doubt the case will make it through.
It is understandable for the U.S. Supreme Court to be meticulous when it comes to hearing cases. The only cases that should come through the high court should be the most controversial and should have their arguments well reasoned.
In this case, the Ninth Circuit made it clear its decision was partly based on the fact that same-sex marriage was once legal in California and then it was not – a situation unlike the rest of America.
"I think it will depend on their guess and their estimate of what will happen if they appeal to the Supreme Court … if they do that, the U.S. Supreme Court does not have to agree to hear this case, because the way in which the panel crafted it is narrowly focused on California, and on the consequences of Proposition 8 for California," Professor Jane Schacter at Stanford Law School told Talking Points Memo, an online political magazine.
The U.S. Supreme Court should accept the case on the grounds of controversial tenor. Although the Ninth Circuit narrowly drafted the opinion for California's needs, the arguments apply everywhere.
"By using their initiative power to target a minority group and withdraw a right that it possessed, without a legitimate reason for doing so, the people of California violated the Equal Protection Clause (of the federal Constitution). We hold Proposition 8 to be unconstitutional on this ground," the Ninth Court said in its assenting opinion.
According to some experts this statement grounds the decision in California. Because homosexuals had equal marriage rights prior to Proposition 8, the court found it unconstitutional to take that right away on the grounds they were a "targeted minority."
Wouldn't homosexuals be considered a targeted minority everywhere because they are denied marriage rights in the first place? If so, then the decision would declare laws against same-sex marriage unconstitutional everywhere in the U.S.
The Ninth Court also argued "it is implausible to think that denying two men or two women the right to call themselves married could somehow bolster the stability of families headed by one man and one woman."
Contrary to some beliefs, there are plenty of reasons for the U.S. Supreme Court to accept the case, and for them to rule laws against same-sex marriage unconstitutional.
There are certain rights to which married heterosexual couples are entitled, and homosexual couples should be able to marry and benefit from these as well. They include tax breaks, receiving veterans' and military benefits for spouses – such as those for education, medical care or special loans – and many more.
Furthermore, there is no proof linking poor development in children raised by homosexual parents.
Other arguments claim that homosexual parents will encourage their children to live the same way. If this was true, then heterosexual parents would not produce homosexual children, which is obviously false.
As my own marriage with my girlfriend of nearly seven years comes closer, (She said yes!) I wonder how it will change the lives of others. When I examine that thought a little more, I realize that the only lives that will be affected are my fiance's and my own. The same would apply to same-sex marriages.
They do not affect others, financially or otherwise. If you don't believe in same-sex marriage, then don't have one.