On Compassion
Green Space

Hurray for California! -- and much of the rest of the "Western" world

I was excited by the news out of California yesterday that a judge had ruled the ban on same-sex marriages unconstitutional. The excerpts I read of the ruling sounded like some of the best legal reasoning on this issue to date.

But I'm afraid that Americans are going to be of the opinion that advances in gay equality are only being done by "radical" states like Massachusettes and California. The truth is that the debate over gay equality is sweeping the globe, with incredible advances being achieved in the last few months. If you look at what nations are taking legal measures to toughen their anti-gay stances the list includes Nigeria, Tanzania, Honduras, the Philippines, etc. (and far right American states). Throughout the "Western" world there have been stunning advances in just a short time. Here is a list of progress since September 2004.

* Gay marriage was already legal in the Netherlands and Belgium.
* Marriage is now legal in most Canadian provinces and will become legal nationwide this year.
* Spain is set to legalize marriage. The bill is currently in parliament and has 61% support from the Spanish population.
* The Israeli Supreme Court ruled 7-2 recognizing adoption rights. The Nazareth District Court ordered spousal rights for gays and lesbians.
* New Zealand has passed a civil unions law.
* In Switzerland a marriage law passed parliament and will go to a nationwide referendum on June 5.
* The parliament of the Czech Republic defeated a same-sex partnership bill, but the vote was a very close 83-82.
* The Russian Supreme Court refered the question to the legislature.
* The United Kingdom will grant full spousal civil rights and have a civil ceremony starting Dec. 5.
* In Brazil the Rio Grande do Sul state has legalized civil unions.
* France for the first time granted family status to a lesbian couple with three children.
* The United Nations offers same-sex spousal benefits.
* Colombia recognizes same-sex partners for the purposes of immigration.
* Germany expanded the rights of same-sex partners in October.
* In Peru the court overturned the ban on gays in the military.
* A partnership bill passed the Polish Senate on Dec. 3
* On Nov. 30 a South African court ruled for gay marriage.
* On Feb. 25 Greece's National Commission for Human Rights said the nation should pass a civil-union law. The ruling was referred to the Justice Ministry.
* Hungary is working on a partnership law that they plan to be in effect by 2007.

Hooray California! And much of the rest of the world.


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

John J

Sadly, I'm sure there are some who are looking over your list and counting the days to armageddon.


I say, "let 'em count." It wasn't too long ago that the church (and other Powers That Be) would have considered my marriage to Toni to be an abomination before God. After all, I am of European descent and she is Native American.

Same social status/different social status. Same race/different race. Same gender/different gender. It's the same song we've heard for centuries of whom is good enough to marry whom.


yay!!! let's hear it for THINKING on this planet!


I am trying to figure out if this is a sarcastic post or for real?

Racism is completely and entirely a different issue than that of the rampant homosexual lifestyle occurring here in the us and all over the world. I Cannot ever change my color of my skin. People are going to be racist towards me even before I open my mouth. People are going to treat me differently based on their perceived background I have just base on my skin tone. I get stares, ignored, people even speak slow or loud to me because they think i don't speak english well or because I'm not as smart because of the color of my skin. i was born brown. but I have not allowed that determine my destiny.

There is NO Proof scientifically of a "gay" gene nor is their proof that people are born gay. I do not condone people killing any one for any reason. But I do not think that as a follower of Christ that we should condone homosexuality either.

I mean do we condone child molestors?
How about rapist?
how bout ponographers?
Drug dealers?
People who drive while intoxicated and kill someone in the process?
Do we accept the lifestyle of a thief or a Murder? I think not.

No of these above mentioned are born with murderer labeled across thier face so people treat them differently? Any one of us could live in the same zip code with thousands of Child Molestors living next door? Would you let your child & neice go spend time with those people, because we should accept them for who they are and who God created them to be. Why then do people have a problem with the allegations of MJ? I mean if it is the lifestyle he wants to life who are we to say what he does is wrong?

This is the lie the devil wants the world to believe:

Let every one live the way they want to live there will be no concequesnces!

Please stop believeing the lie!

I completely can understand the mindset that says Who are we to condem? Who are we to tell these people what they are doing is wrong?

Either as a follower of Christ you are required to believe the whole WORD. Be cause Jesus is the WORD mad flesh. I do not think sin that was a sin back then isn't a sin now, in reality a sin is a sin. And all sin has been made equal but with different consequesnces.

I usually don't write on these blog things. but I was so compelled to write because of my concern that the writer of this blog is almost avocating this mindset that homosexuallity is something to condone. Your belief in the lies does't change the fact that the truth has existed before the world was even formed.


"Fear leads to anger. Anger heads to hate. Hate leads to suffering." -Yoda


(For the record, that was sarcasm. Just so there are no fiery misunderstandings.)

John J

Lil-E makes me fear for the church, this nation, and the world.


Lil-E (Is this your rapper name?)
says, "I mean do we condone child molestors?
How about rapist?
how bout ponographers?
Drug dealers?
People who drive while intoxicated and kill someone in the process?
Do we accept the lifestyle of a thief or a Murder? I think not"

I'm not gay, but I have known people that are gay and I'm incredibly offended on their behalf that you would compare them their sexual orientation to these other categories. Homosexuality is not a harmful practice. As a matter of fact, I would let my kids (If I had some) hang out with my gay friends a thousand times before I would let them hang out with most of the heterosexual pastors in this city.


I could give a crap if homosexuals are given the right to marry but - and this is where I step into this little flamewar - a judge should not be the one to give them that right.

All law should flow from the people, not from the person in the black robe.

Scott Jones

Gabe, it is the role of the judiciary to make sure that the law is being followed. It is and always has been in America the job of the courts to make sure that statutes do not violate constitutions.


But then your argument comes down to the same old two sided argument over whether constitutions are static or dynamic.

If the California constitution has nothing in it that defines gay marriage and they want such a thing, it is NOT the place of the judiciary to insert it where they feel it's necessary. They DO, however, need to put such a thing before the people and allow such a change to be made democratically.

I think all people should be treated fairly, but I do not feel that it is the court's job to decide whether a law violates the constitution. Why? Because that's what we have elected officials for. We elect them and they make or change laws based on our wants and needs, not on the wants and needs of an individual choosing to ignore some things and promote others.

I'm cool with gay marriage so long as everybody else is on board with it and it goes before a vote of the people.

Hence the stupidity of the Massachusetts court telling the legislature that the law doesn't exist so they need to make one and then all but writing a temporary law for the meantime. Legislation occurs by our elected officials, not appointed peoples.

Besides that, can you point me towards one place in any constitution where it outlines that its interpreters are members of the court?


"I do not feel that it is the court's job to decide whether a law violates the constitution. Why? Because that's what we have elected officials for."

Gabe, the elected officials you are speaking of are the ones that write the laws in the first place. If it weren't up to a separate government body (the court system) to interpret those same laws, we would have no system of checks and balances in our government's lawmaking. The court system (on all of its levels) is probably the most important part of lawmaking, because it helps prevent elected officials from becoming dictators.



I see your reasoning in making sure that elected officials do not use their powers for eeeevil (like it's the fru-its of the deveel, eeeevil). But in the same vein I believe that legislating from the bench is not the same thing as keeping the legislative branch in check.

Saying that a law is unconstitutional is great and I'm all for the court's opinion, but it is not their job to _change_ that law.

But like many people you've been taught that if we didn't have the courts then any and all laws could be passed that oppressed us. The fact is, though, that if it weren't for popular opinion, no laws would be passed in the first place. Few laws are the single thought or idea of a single person. Even Joseph McCarthy, in his blind and pointless persecution, had the support of many people. They were wrong. But being a wrong majority has never stopped the people from making a choice good or bad.

No, my issue is the court taking power away from people in order to make the law what they think it should be. I don't think we should do away with the courts or even change them all that much but I think we need a stricter federalist view from the bench.

Kelly (Gabe's dad)

This has been a great discussion, but you missed the bottom line. Take a few minutes to actually read the decision> http://www.aclu.org/Files/OpenFile.cfm?id=17711 I have a doctorate in law and fifteen years of practice under my belt so I will pull rank a little. This decision is exquisitely reasoned and goes to great pains to follow the law. This judge is not a closet gay, he is a conservative catholic appointed by a republican. The lawyers that practice before him recognize him as one who does NOT legislate from the bench; he follows the law. There is no question in my mind this well founded and reasoned decision is correct under the law. Whether I agree or not is irrelevant. Why do you think there is such a push to amend the constitution? The only argument against gay marriage is "tradition"---"it's always been this way." Of course that was the same argument that was used to outlaw inter-racial marraige and slavery and lots of other "traditions." The equal protection clause will not allow the state to legislate who you can marry. Unless the constitution is changed, it is just a matter of time before gay marriage is allowed in America.



What do you think about a NAMBLA?

These are grown men who molesting boys.

All those catholic priest who were molesting boys...

Even that pastor that was arrested today molested a boy

Does any one see a correlation here. Men who aree molesting boys. They are drawn to boys particularly are homosexuals. Having a sexual orientation towards one of the same sex. DO you think this isn't harmful. I would definitely strongly encourage you not to leave your future children with any homosexual or you might have a bigger issue on your hands.

Please hear me, I do not hate any one... But I just cannot accept any immoral lifestyles. I cannot advocate alcoholics, promisquity, drug addicts or homosexuals. All of these lifestyles not only are they harmful to others but they it is also harmful to those who are practicing that lifestyle. (Look at how Aids can be spread -needles from drug abuse, promisquity, and homosexual sex). thier lifestyle is killing thier opportunity to enter the kingdom of Heaven. Like I said before Sin is Sin. It is important that we do not let the darkness (or imorality) of this world overcome us. But Jesus said that he came so that we could over come the World. The Love of God will change everything once those that are activly living a sinful life acknowleged that they are separated from God because of thier sin. I mean I have done some ungodly things my self and trust me It took God's love to heal me and make me whole again. Every one has the opportunity to determine the outome of thier eternity.

BTW lil-e is a nick name some one gave me.



If you read my earlier comments, you'll see that I don't have an issue with courts rendering of opinions in matters of constitutional law but it still is not the place of the court to amend, change or do away with ANY law.

It never has been and it hopefully never will be. If the people of California have laws that violate their own constitution either they have to amend their constitution or they have to repeal the laws. Neither of those actions should be the responsibility of even the most conservative judge.

That, in itself, is why Roe v. Wade is such a bad ruling. The courts took away the rights of states to determine what was law in their jurisdictions by making it federal law, FROM THE BENCH.

Scott Jones

Gabe, ever hear of Brown v. Topeka?


Actually it IS the judiciaries' role to determine whether a law from the legislature is or is not constitutional. That is a vital part of the checks and balances of our system. Where any law is contrary to the constitution it IS the role of the court to "change, amend or do away" with such law. My whole point is that laws banning gay marriage are unconstitutional. This is not a comment on whether it's right or not, I am simply addressing the issue of constitutionality. If we do not like the constitution, then the PEOPLE of America have the ability to change it.


I did a little research---this


is the point Gabe is making. I still think the same, but now I understand his position.



I have no doubt that there are homosexuals that are doing things that are obviously immoral like molesting children. But I don't think that their homosexuality has anything to do with it. Would it make it any better if they were molesting little girls? Would it only be half the sin then because its not mixed with homosexuality? I don't think male or female orientation is the issue. It seems to be that of perversion.

Only the extreme cases like this are the ones that get brought to the attention of the masses. The thousands (perhaps millions) of homosexuals that are loving caring, nurturing, kind, understanding, and I dare say, Moral never make the cover story of a news broadcast. Just like anything else, if its not extreme or outrageous it doesn't make the news. Your committing a logical fallacy, my friend, when you ascribe the characteristic of the few, to the many.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.


Post a comment

Your Information

(Name and email address are required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)