It is inappropriate to create such a dichotomy here, especially in a country with separation of church and state.
That statement is a contradiction. Church and State are mutually exclusive (ideally). Hence, a dichotomy.
City hall must conform in a democracy to the will of the people in societal matters. There was no litmus test in CA that said you couldn't vote for the traditional definition unless you were a member of a church.
I tried to articulate a response, but Walker summed it up better. I agree, however...
An initiative measure adopted by the voters deserves great respect. The considered views and opinions of even the most highly qualified scholars and experts seldom outweigh the determinations of the voters. When challenged, however, the voters’ determinations must find at least some support in evidence. This is especially so when those determinations enact into law classifications of persons. Conjecture, speculation and fears are not enough. Still less will the moral disapprobation of a group or class of citizens suffice, no matter how large the majority that shares that view. The evidence demonstrated beyond serious reckoning that Proposition 8 finds support only in such disapproval. As such, Proposition 8 is beyond the constitutional reach of the voters or their representatives.
Church and religion are to be excluded from the matter decided in a state vote of all citizens legally allowed to vote in CA, which is indeed what happened, as thus any reference to church/religion in the matter is inappropriate.
Yes and No.
Church and religion are not enough. Tradition is not enough of a legal basis for discrimination--by that I mean keeping same-sex unions separate but almost equal to opposite-sex marriages.
The question remains what is the correct method of deciding the definition of marriage for Americans (Californians, in this specific issue)? Is it a democratic popular vote? Is a simple majority sufficient? Does it require two thirds majority to re-establish? Is a national vote required? Do judges decide these matters? What?
Walker sited two supreme court cases - "the right to marry has been historically and remains the right to choose a spouse and, with mutual consent, join together and form a household", citing Loving v. Virginia and Griswold v. Connecticut. He goes on to say that "[r]ace and gender restrictions shaped marriage during eras of race and gender inequality, but such restrictions were never part of the historical core of the institution of marriage".
Re: who decides and National Vote - no majority can trample the rights of the minority. The CA ballot measure was a legal process. But the outcome has to be tested against both the state and U.S. constitution. Keep in mind that 18,000 California same-sex couples remained legally married. What becomes of this status? And how do we justify denying a marriage license to the next same-sex couple. To define them is less-than would be wrong.
Also, a state's interest and therefore its laws have to be based on logic and reason - not just emotion or tradition: Appeal to tradition is a fallacy in which a thesis is deemed correct on the basis that it correlates with some past or present tradition. e.g. "this is right because we've always done it this way."
Again, I'll point out to the traditionalist, that marriage in the bible refers to an underage girl being traded by her father for land or livestock. The definition of marriage has been changing for a long time. Prior to 1967, states didn't allow blacks and whites to wed.
Loving v. Virginia
Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State. - SCOTUS, and they get the final word.