GAY MARRIAGE: A TRAVESTY OF THE LAW

ImageImage

I commiserate with the entire people of United States, most especially persons from California on the recent Supreme Court decision in the cases of Hollingsworth v. Perry and Windsor v. United States that declared Proposition 8 of California law unconstitutional and the Defence of Marriage Act (DOMA) unconstitutional. This decision by five judges to redefine the age long notion of marriage as a union between one man and one woman is an unmitigated tragedy, a travesty of law, and a great injustice. By their decision, the judges place themselves above the voters of California or even members of congress and most importantly God the creator of the Universe and creator of the institution of marriage

In the case of Hollingsworth v. Perry, in 2008, there was a constitutional amendment passed in California that provided that only marriage between a man and a woman should recognised in California. Proposition 8 was passed with over 52% of the vote, capturing the support of over 7 million California voters. Proponents for this proposition argued rightly that heterosexual marriage was an essential fabric and institution of society which has been in existence from time immemorial, and that the gay persons though humans and ought to be respected do not have the right to redefine marriage for everyone else. Proponents and activists of the LGBT’s challenged this proposition in court, and it climbed the ladder of the courts until it reached the Supreme Court of America. In the Supreme Court, the plaintiff Hollingsworth like other LGBTadvocates argued their case, and opined that that proposition had to be struck out because freedom to marry is fundamental in their society and that the California constitution should guarantee the same freedom and rights to everyone. This case received a major setback because the Governor of California Jerry Brown and his Attorney General Kamala Harris, who receive political support from homosexual groups and activists, refused to defend Proposition 8 as such some private persons decided to defend the bill. It is quite unfortunate that the administration of Jerry Brown did not want to defend the wishes of the people who voted him into power; rather he chose to succumb to the wishes of the minority pressure group. This is corruption and irresponsibility.

Brain Brown, NOM’s president opines that “The Supreme Court’s holding that proponents of an initiative had no legal right to appeal ignores California law and rewards corrupt politicians for abandoning their duty to defend traditional marriage laws.

Commenting on this, Ryan T. Anderson, co-author of the book “What Is Marriage? Man and Woman: A Defense.” opined that the court made no ruling on the merits of Proposition 8, but said only that the citizens who passed the constitutional amendment didn’t have standing to defend their law. The only reason this jurisdictional question was an issue is because the governor and attorney general of California decided to not defend a law passed by the people. It is scandalous that those state officials refused to perform their duty. That abdication of their responsibility should not have prevented a vigorous defence in court. This outcome sets a disturbing precedent and distorts the balance of powers among the legislative, executive, and judicial branches. It would allow the executive branch to effectively veto duly enacted laws, simply by refusing to defend it against a constitutional challenge.

On the other hand, in Windsor v. United States in a 5-4 decision the Supreme Court struck down Section 3 of the Defence of Marriage Act. In striking down Section 3 of the federal Defence of Marriage Act, the court declared that the Federal Government cannot define marriage as the union of one man and one woman for its own policies and laws but must accept whatever the states decide about marriage.

Despite all these, our only joy is that the court did not hear the prayers of Ted Olsen and David Boies who were asking for the redefinition of marriage across the entire country as such making same-sex ‘marriage a constitutional right. The court’s ruling, though, does not affect Section 2, which provides that no state is required to give effect to another state’s recognition of same-sex marriages. Seems like the court has learnt from its mistake of 1973 in Roe v. Wade.

One may be quick to ask what this decision has to do with Africa and in particular, Nigeria. It has everything to do with African. In the judgment, the judges referred to persons who oppose gay marriage as hostes humani generis, enemies of the human race, and enemies of human decency. More of these assaults are coming

President Obama on hearing the news hailed the rulings as a “Victory for American democracy. In his $100 million tour around Africa, he was promoting the issue of gay marriage on the basis that people should be treated equally, and that is a principle that applies universally.This he pushed in Senegal and Tanzania. We in Nigeria have to be weary. The wind is blowing

Advertisements

4 comments on “GAY MARRIAGE: A TRAVESTY OF THE LAW

  1. Finally, this blog has matured to discuss the basic issue facing society. Kudos my dear friend and administrator for bringing up the issue. Obama in Africa preaching gay marriage. Am sure not surprised. Even before he came South Africa was swimming in the murky waters of homosexuality. We even have gay clubs in Nigeria, even in our dear Ondo state. The issues remains that they have been gays through out history such as the rumoured Michaelangelo and King James who compiled the bible. The crux of the matter is that back in the days, gays kept their activities covert and it was a thing of shame and hence only to be done in secret. Homosexuality has been a ground for divorce in many cases both in Nigeria and abroad. Obama is preaching that we should stop repressing gays and allow them to come out of the closet. I really like what the Senegalese President did by asking Obama on camera to marry him ( smart move). The main approach I believe would be for African leaders to tell Obama that the issue is not for discussion as African cultures are not synonymous with homosexuality. For instance, I can’t imagine a woman coming to do the Ime ego ceremony for my sister or a man being a LOLO ( wife of a title man). If men married, who would go for August meeting, who would go for omuguo ( some weeks of intense care for a woman who just put to birth). As for America, It is a heterogeneous country with many cultures. It reminds me of why God told Solomon not to marry women from other tribes and when he did, he began worshipping other gods and that was his tragic flaw. In essence, many people from different cultures bring their ideologies to America and pollute it in the name of creating a society that is equal for all, hence, leaving such a society without its basic norms, values and Ideals. The problem with the law is that it is an arse. The law puts the court as the custodian of the rule of law, thereby making the citizens subject to the law. Hence, the Law Lords have failed to check the heart beat of society and see what society wants. They have failed to look at what the majority want have decided to settle for popular sentiment and mediocrity. It is high time the PEOPLES. PARLIAMENT as was obtainable in GREEK is brought back, so that the say of the people becomes final and the court would no longer override thge interest of society under the guise of public policy or best interest. As for the governors and at attorneys general sitting by idle an watching the custodians of justice go beserk, the truth is that any public official whose continuance in office depends on voting would do any thing possible to keep the people on his side ( in a democratic setting).flowing from this it is humbly pointed out that gay marriage has become a topical issue in election with the citizenry wanting to know where each aspirant stands. The truth is that the western society in its pursuit of freedom have crossed the line into bondage unconsciously and hence it must be appreciated that majority of americans do not like hardliners on issues such as homosexuality, abortion, bestiality, tax and the American troops in Afghan and Iraq and hence would vote whoever promises them what they want. In conclusion, I must point out that Obama is not pushing his personal agenda but that of a mad nation. This point is buttressesed by his CNN interview before his first term when he was asked about homosexuality and he replied quite blatantly that marriage is between a man and a woman and it should not be change. However, being a politician and the President of such a nation as America, he has bowed to the demands of his people who want to stop being in the closet and those who do not see anything wrong with homosexuality. The only way to tame this raging beast of homosexuality is to proscribe the media so that they do not show us homosexual scenes, homosexual campaigns. In essnce they should stop airing anything homosexual in a bid to make them obscure and their agitation unknown. At present it would be agreed that almost all films, novels and intellectual material depict homosexuality in one form or the other. Infact homosexual porn is now preferred to heterosexual porn and is increasingly on demand ( what a blow to straight porn lovers). That way, we may save succeeding generations from this madness. Intellectual property should be homosexual free and homosexuals just like juveniles should be rehabilitated and encouraged to embrace the STRAIGHT ways.

    • despite the obvious fact that America houses varied customs and cultures, i do not think that is enough ground for Obama to support gay marriage. Because inherent in the world is the operation of natural law, which is universal and immutable. Gay marriage is gravely contrary to natural law and is repugnant to good conscience. As such the best thing to have done was to stick to his conscience. Since he claims to be a christian as well, homosexuality is against our christian faith, since he reads his bible he can check Ist Corinthians 6:19. lets know which God he is serving

  2. “But must accept whateva d state decide marriage shud be”..Am quite dissapointed at d supreme court judges who stood by that assertion-A Judicial Mockery- What more interpretation do a state need to add to an already existing and effective definition of Marriage..All English Authorities define marriage as a union between a man and a woman,they neva intended otherwise..in as much as d defence of marriage act is a federal enactment,which gives d state discretion weda or not to adopt same,they however acted excessively by makin d above unintelligible statement…Obama in his current sojourn to convince African leaders to submit to Gay marriage is ntn more but an epileptic move;what a shame!!Money,Power and Fame have driven upright men to madness..I must submit dat one problem with d American Administration is “Excessive Respect for Human Rights”(Joy Ezeilo),and dat why they are willing and ready to go to such unreasonable extent to respect such right-no matter how abysmal and absurd such right is..Attimes,I sympathise with my learned father Plato who opined for a philosopher king who wud rule with reason…I just pray dat Africans wud live up to expectation by rejecting d advice of d american beast among us-who deem it right to waste 100million dollars on nothing..GOD BLESS AFRICA

  3. other African leaders have proved by their words and deeds that not only is gay marriage alien to our culture but we have no plan at all to adopt it, unfortunately we cannot say so for our Dear Jonathan until he signs the bill into law. we hope he does so soonest

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s