Maggie Gallagher, president of the National Organization for Marriage, offers an excellent analysis of the issues and implications coming out of the gay marriage debate. “Ideas have consequences. This is what ‘marriage equality’ means,” she writes at National Review Online.

The California Supreme Court overturned the state ban on same-sex marriages last month and declared it an unconstitutional breach of citizens’ right of equal protection, according to majority opinion leader Chief Justice Ronald George in US News.

The repeal caused a tumultuous combination of conservative protest and influx of requests for marriage. By the evening of Friday, June 13, hundreds of same-sex couples scheduled appointments to obtain licenses at San Francisco City Hall, according to the San Francisco Chronicle. California conservatives acted just as quickly, reports US News, as 1.1 million signatures on a petition secured the issue on the November ballot for a vote. Californians will then decide on the constitutional definition of marriage.

California Supreme Court Justice Marvin Baxter expressed his disapproval of the ban in his dissenting opinion, saying the court overstepped its bounds as a check to the legislative branch. “If there is to be a…change in the social and legal understanding of marriage itself,” he said, “that evolution should occur by similar democratic means.” He chided the Californian judicial branch for seeking to change the “age-old” and “confirmed” meaning of marriage, and supports the move to put the decision in the hands of the people.

Conservatives who support the ban cite religious convictions and tradition.* Everett Rice of California Family Council, a not-for-profit organization that aims at protecting traditional family values, told the San Francisco Chronicle that by allowing same-sex marriages, the state was asking Californians to cast off ideals held since the founding of America. “Why do we have to change our historical understanding of marriage?” he asked. He conveys the worldview of the organization, whose Web site vouches for defining marriage in the state constitution as a union between a man and a woman.

With the possibility of Californians lifting the ban within four months, same-sex couples are vying for licenses to wed during the narrow time window this summer. Starting Tuesday, the first day the licenses are available, California will see another historic rush for its borders.

*This sentence has been changed from the original.  It originally read, “Conservatives who oppose the ban cite religious convictions and tradition.”  

The California Supreme Court, voting along the same lines as it did in its original ruling, refused to stay its decision legalizing same-sex marriage in the state. The court did this despite the fact that California voters will have the opportunity in November to vote to limit marriage to a man and a woman, which will overturn the court’s decision. Because of today’s ruling, gay couples will be able to begin marrying on Tuesday, June 17. But what happens if the ballot initiative passes on Nov. 4? Those four California Supreme Court justices must love chaos.

In a 4-3 decision today, the California Supreme Court decided to ignore the wishes of the state’s voters by overturning a ban on gay marriage in the biggest state in the country. According to the Associated Press, one of the three dissenting justices, Marvin Baxter, wrote that he agreed with many arguments of the majority but that the court had overstepped its authority, adding that changes to marriage laws should be decided by the voters. And voters in California may have another chance in November, when a measure that would enshrine laws banning gay marriage in the state constitution could possibly appear on the ballot. The state’s secretary of state still needs to rule whether the measure’s sponsors have enough signatures to place the marriage amendment on the ballot. If the amendment comes to a vote and passes, today’s decision would be voided.

Lyndale United Church of Christ, a small, liberal church in south Minneapolis was the first of several Twin Cities congregations last year to stop performing civil marriage ceremonies as long as gay marriage is illegal. Lyndale will still hold a religious ceremony to “bless” the unions of straight and gay couples. But if straight couples want to get married, they have to go elsewhere.

Street Prophets, a Kos blog on faith and politics, quotes from a Dec. 14 AP story by Patrick Condon that has since mysteriously disappeared from the Web (let us know if you come up with it):

“If you feel that gay and lesbian people are loved and credited by God, then how can we continue to discriminate against our brothers and sisters?” asked Rev. Don Portwood, the reserved Nebraska native who’s been lead pastor at the 120-member Lyndale United Church of Christ for 27 years.

The Lyndale congregation voted unanimously to cease civil marriages. A handful of other congregations around the country have taken similar action. What do you of this protest?

Utne writer Brendan Mackie says that when it comes to arguing against gay marriage, conservatives should stop using the “but it hurts traditional marriage” argument. 

(more…)

The arguments over gay marriage have revealed a lot of confusion about the meaning and history of the marriage covenant - and that confusion seems just as common among Christians as anyone else. 

(more…)