A tragic development occurred today when the California Supreme Court reversed last year’s decision and upheld the narrow victory of the anti gay marriage supporters in the state referendum held at the time of last fall’s Presidential election.
At the same time, the California Supreme Court upheld the 18,000 marriages that took place over about six months after the court ruled in favor of gay marriage up to the time of the election referendum.
This whole development is so contradictory and invites further attempts to legitimize gay marriage on a permanent basis through another struggle via constitutional referendum in the future.
Just imagine if the states were allowed to vote in the 1960s on whether interracial marriage should be allowed! The Supreme Court of the United States finally ruled on that issue in 1967, and I think ultimately, the Supreme Court at some point will have to rule on gay marriage in the future.
So gay marriage has made advancements in recent months in several states, just as the largest state embarrasses itself on this issue within one year, and it makes one wonder why there should even be a vote on this issue. Is marriage to be allowed only if a majority allow it? It seems to me that this is not the business of a referendum, but is a basic constitutional right. At the same time, of course, no religious group can be required to marry two people they do not wish to marry, but since civil marriage exists, religion should not be able to interfere with marriages outside of religious boundaries.
One thing is certain: the battle over this issue will continue, and I believe, in the long run, gay marriage will eventually be widely accepted, as it is already among people under the age of 40. It is a question of time and adaptation to change.