Of all the states, California has been one of the most liberal concerning the legality of gay marriage. In 2004, San Francisco issued marriage licenses to gay couples, bypassing the national debate over the meaning of marriage with concrete, sympathetic action toward gay couples.
This week, one of three judges on a California district court of appeals stated that domestic partnership is not the same as
marriage; the state cannot claim that the option of a civil union makes up for denying gay couples the right to a traditional marriage. The appeals court is involved in examining whether
or not Proposition 22, which affirmed the state’s one man, one woman stance in 2000, should be legal.
Across the country, Massachusetts underwent a similar judicial inquiry into the legality of gay marriage bans; unfortunately, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court took an anti-gay stance, unworthy of the state’s positive history regarding gay partnership. The court ruled that a ballot measure to overturn
the 2003 decision that permitted gay marriage can be put on the Massachusetts ballot.
The oscillating views on gay marriage keep growing more fickle; the situations in Massachusetts and California prove that the definition of marriage is anything but stable, or agreed upon by citizens and policymakers. The problem, however, is the gay couples forced to ride the wave of marriages, appeals, bans and more appeals. In crafting their final decisions,
we strongly urge the judicial systems of Massachusetts, California, and other states to consider the emotional, humanistic ramifications of their actions.