Many among our panel support the decision of a US federal judge to overturn California’s ban on same-sex marriage, responses from panellists have shown. The subject provoked diverse responses, although three main lines of opinion emerged.
A large number of comments favoured the judge’s ruling, with many feeling the overturn of the ban marked a significant step towards eliminating the discrimination of gay and lesbian couples in the state (although the ban did not rule out civil partnerships similar to those that we have in Britain). One panellist felt that ‘it’s a good thing – it is not for the public to tell a same sex couple they should not be allowed to legally marry’, while another simply asked ‘if two people love each other and want to get married, does it really matter what sex they are?’
Other more conservative panellists held that marriage should only be between a man and a woman and therefore opposed the judge’s decision to allow homosexual couples to wed. One argued that ‘marriage is divinely ordained between a man and a woman only’, while one repeated the often-cited defence that ‘same-sex marriages are not natural’.
A third category, however, opposed the overturning of the ban on the basis of democracy, as the ban was voter-approved via referendum in 2008. In the referendum, 52% voted against gay marriage, while 48% were in favour. Many of our respondents felt that the ban represented the will of the majority and should therefore have been left to remain. One argued that ‘it is wrong [for one person] to interfere in state legislation’, while another agreed that ‘a judge should not overturn legislation that has been approved by voters’.
Many states in the US have enacted bans on same-sex marriage, although capital Washington DC allows the practice.
California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has welcomed the overturn of the same-sex marriage ban.
