Some Logical Corollaries of California's Gay Marriage Decision

American Thinker ^ | May 19, 2008 | Paul Shlichta

[neverdem]

As Lady Macbeth said, "what's done cannot be undone" -- except by constitutional amendment. In order to appease an intransigent minority group, the California Supreme Court has, in the manner of Roe v. Wade, resorted to inventing a new legal principle to justify their predetermined goal.

But one does wish that they had thought the matter out a little more carefully. In creating a mechanism for justifying gay marriage, the justices have set in motion an infernal machine with consequences far beyond their limited imaginations. Cliff Thier has already pointed out that these unintended consequences may include the invalidation of no-fault divorce and the legitimization of polygamy. Let us extend his line of argument further and assess the range of logical consequences of this decision.

Using their "strict Scrutiny standard" -- which the court obviously invented ad hoc to justify gay marriage -- the justices deem that constitutionality requires that any differential treatment be not only in a constitutionally legitimate interest but that it also be a compelling state interest for which differential treatment is absolutely necessary [italics theirs]. You have to think this idea over for a while to fully appreciate its asininity and the vast number of California laws that could be declared unconstitutional if it were applied uniformly. But let us for the moment content ourselves with considering the full extent of its application to the institution of marriage.

The court goes on, with a great deal of verbal sleight-of-hand and gobbledygook, to justify gay marriage, i.e. the elevation of the union of two males or two females, who engage in mutual sexual activity, to the full status of marriage. The first thing we notice about this argument is the superfluity of the word "two". True, the words "two adults" and "couple" do appear in the decision, but only by way of example and not of restriction. No argument is given for the magical uniqueness of "two" and no argument presented thereafter is not equally applicable to three or four or more gay men or lesbian women. It is my fond hope that, even as we speak, some gay trio or quartet in San Francisco is planning to apply for a marriage license. And I would defy the California Supreme Court, with the present decision in place, to devise a way to stop them within the boundaries of its own principles.

Having been forced to accept the right of gay polygamous marriage, we are compelled to concede a similar right to heterosexual polygamy. As Their has already noted, the insertion of the word "polygamous" into appropriate places in the CSC decision yields a coherent and logical case for the rights of polygamous families to full marital status. So those gay couples (and trios and quartets, etc.) waiting in line for marriage licenses will find their ranks augmented by eager Muslim and Mormon dissident sect applicants.

But the fun doesn't stop there. Even the ingenious wordsmiths of CSC would be hard pressed to justify specific sexual acts as requirements for full marital status. Accepting the arguments used for granting marital status to gay couples and trios, we must admit that there would be no honest reason for denying the same status to other cohabiting couples such as brothers and/or sisters, cousins, or just friends. 

Consider, for example, two old friends of mine, Felix and Oscar, who have shared an apartment for decades.  Their friendship has no homoerotic overtones; they are in fact persistently if unsuccessfully heterosexual.  The legalization of gay marriages wouldn't help them a bit.   But if they were to claim to be gay partners, they would, under the present CSC decision, be eligible for all the advantages of a gay marriage.  If that isn't "discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation", please tell me what is. Therefore, in all fairness, the CSC must extend its permission to them and their ilk

Having got rid of the old Judeo-Christian taboos, and considering the logical ramifications of the recent CSC decision, we are forced to conclude that "marriage" in California is now or about to be accessible to any cohabiting group of any number of people of the same or both sexes, regardless of sexual orientation or activity.

However, the transition into such an innovation should be undertaken very slowly and cautiously because of  the legal ramifications, such as tax status, inheritance, liability, and dissolution of union, that will engender a labyrinth of complications.  Any hasty and poorly thought out legislation would result in decades of litigation and statute revision.  In many cases, laws concerning married couples will not serve as a valid model because of their emphasis on provision for children.  Moreover, if domestic partnership status confers any substantial legal or economic advantages, then it can confidently be predicted that, within a few decades, virtually everyone will be a member of such a union.  This could result in devastating changes in, for example, our tax structure.

But let us look on the bright side. The CSC decision could lead to the restoration of clans or tribes -- a concept that has often had a strong stabilizing effect on society. Eventually, whole communities or cities might be joined in matrimony. Ultimately the whole population of California might become one big happy family, filing a single enormous tax return and referring to the governor (by then hereditary) as "big daddy" or big mama". And in such an intimate family-state, there would be no need for a supreme court.

[kik5150]

I hope these justices meet the same fate as Rose Bird.

[umgud]

Don’t forget all the employer healthcare plans that will have to be offered to all the new spouses.

[doug from upland]

Once the definition is changed, indeed, there is no logical reason to deny several people getting married. And what is the ultimate logical conclusion? Why does it have to be within the same species? Here it is on YouTube -— a man and his goat -— http://youtube.com/watch?v=Ov35-fAOyP8

[TheEaglehasLanded]

Add Comrade Arrnoold, better known as MRS. KENNEDY now!!

[abishai]

And just wait for all the alimony cases...

[purpleraine]

Doug, you might want to limit the marriage thing to intelligent beings who can engage in contracts. I haven’t met this man’s goat, nut let’s see how he does on contract reading.

[stimulant]

You're right. The Court decision changes the institution of marriage. If individuals of the same-sex may marry than isn't it discriminatory to prevent adults who practice adult incest or polygamy from getting married?There must be thousands of family members who want to legtimize their perverted relationships: brother and sister;father and daughter,etc. It will be interesting to read about a same-sex marriage couple from Calif. that moves to say Arizona and finds that their marriage is not recognized and sues for descrimination because another married couple(man and woman)are recognized as married.

[Onelifetogive]

Doug, you might want to limit the marriage thing to intelligent beings who can engage in contracts.

Has literacy even been a marriage prerequisite?

[csense]

Setting aside theology for a moment, marriage is based upon the only fundamental distinction of the species: gender. Logically, it is the merging of dissimilar parts, that can only be represented by two, since there is only male and female. In short, the qualitative infers the quantitative.

Marriage that is based on similarity, i.e., homosexual marriage, infers no such quantity as two. In fact, there is no quantitative inference, and attempt to do so would be completely arbitrary.

Logically homosexual marriage infers polygamy, among other things, whether anyone likes it or not...

[stimulant]

I'm not sure that it will have much impact as Calif.Gays can register with the State under some kind of Domestic Partnership and become eligible for medical care under their partner's Health Plan. At least that's true in many government positions.

[csense]

Setting aside theology for a moment, marriage is based upon the only fundamental distinction of the species: gender. Logically, it is the merging of dissimilar parts, that can only be represented by two, since there is only male and female. In short, the qualitative infers the quantitative.

Marriage that is based on similarity, i.e., homosexual marriage, infers no such quantity as two. In fact, there is no quantitative inference, and any attempt to do so would be completely arbitrary.

Logically, homosexual marriage infers polygamy, among other things, whether anyone likes it or not...

[fixed it]

[doug from upland]

I understand contract and consent. If they change the institution, who says that they can’t change the requirements for the ability to contract and give consent? A serverely mentally retarded person has no ability to contract. But isn’t that person able to marry?

[irishjuggler]

I hope these justices meet the same fate as Rose Bird.

Me, too. Unfortunately, this isn't the same state that it was in 1986. A lot of the voters who kicked out Rose Bird, voted for Deukmejian, etc., have moved out of the state (or died). Our new majority of liberals and immigrants is unlikely to exact revenge on our runaway Justices.

[Steely Tom]

Our new majority of liberals and immigrants is unlikely to exact revenge on our runaway Justices.

I don't think it's the "Justices" they want to exact revenge against.

[goldstategop]

You had four foolish people drunk on hubris and arrogance who substituted their own judgment for the will of the people and the wisdom of the ages. The Left may soon regret opening this Pandora's Box.

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus

[goldstategop]

Exactly. All form of marriage are equally valid. An adult pedophile can marry a 9 year old child. Nothing in the California Supreme Court's decision forbids such a union.

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus

[goldstategop]

The Left has always sought to abolish marriage and the family, a paradigm that goes back all the way to Marx and the Communist Manifesto. In the guise of legalizing same sex marriage, they have realized an age-old dream to up-end the existing social order.

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus

[M1911A1]

Just try and marry your assault rifle...you’ll end up in jail.

Even the Californication Supremes have limits, ya know.

[neverdem]

A smashing success UAH has the biggest test gun in the country

Army Colonel Says U.S. Needs Better Focus in the War on Terror

Your Energy Future Under the Democrats

From time to time, I’ll ping on noteworthy articles about politics, foreign and military affairs. FReepmail me if you want on or off my list.

[puroresu]

Supporters of same-sex “marriage” often use the consent argument to assure everyone that the left will never push for human-animal “marriage”. But animals don’t have to give their consent to anything else we do to them, so why would they have to give their consent for marriage?

We can leash animals, enclose them in barns, chain then, collar them, take them from place to place without their consent.

We can take their eggs and milk without their consent. We can sell their offspring without their consent.

We can kill them and eat them, obviously without their consent.

Yet same-sex “marriage” proponents come along and tell us that the inability of animals to sign a contract means there would be no way to sanction a human-animal “marriage”. As if that would mean a damn thing to an activist judge determined to drive another nail in our nation’s coffin.

[puroresu]

The left also wants to eradicate the idea of the transcendent in society. The idea that there is a higher value to which we aspire. The bonding of male and female is such a transcendent value. Two become one, they complete one another. They can mate, in a way that two people of the same sex obviously cannot.

The idea of same-sex “marriage” is to make marriage itself guttural and to rob it of its transcendent nature. Everything liberals do is aimed at doing this type of thing. To take something that appeals to our better nature and pervert it into something designed for personal gratification.

This is how they view everything. Education isn't supposed to educate, but to enhance the self-esteem of the students. Government isn't supposed to look out for the national interest, but to provide goodies. The military isn't there to valiantly fight for our nation if necessary, but to provide equal employment opportunities for women, gays, or whomever. Art isn't there to appeal to our higher ideals, but to display our contempt. Excellence is discriminatory, equality is idealistic.

[az_gila]

“It is my fond hope that, even as we speak, some gay trio or quartet in San Francisco is planning to apply for a marriage license.”

---

Someone is going to have to modify the forms first... where do the extra names go?.....:^)

[668 - Neighbor of the Beast]

Polygamy has a lot firmer standing than monogamous gay marriage. Many cultures have had legitimate polygamous unions in the past, and some have them today.

Keeping polygamy outlawed, using the CA court's logic, would be impossible. Indeed, there is not only a compelling interest, but a necessary one, and that would be, roughly:

The ban on polygamy runs counter to the holy of holies, diversity, tolerance, multiculturalism, as enshrined in the media, the universities, and the Almighty government of California.

Undoubtedly the CA court would say that CA would collapse upon itself and crumble to the sea if the law against polygamy were allowed to stand.

Regrettably needful clarification: I am against polygamy, please don't assume otherwise.

[Travis McGee]

There is now no legal principle to exclude a 40 year old daddy from marrying his 19 year old daughter (or son), after a lifetime of grooming her (or him) for legal incest.

[doug from upland]

Exactly. If a judge determines only the human needs to give consent, then so it will be.

[purpleraine]

the prequisite is the intelligence and right to engage in a contract. You’re being foolish if you think your goat can do that.

[purpleraine]

nice try, children cannot legaly engage in contracts

[Mamzelle]

Madness—living under the tyranny of arrogant lawyers.

[Publius Valerius]

children cannot legaly engage in contracts

Yes they can. In some situations, a contract entered into by a minor may not be enforceable, but a minor can contract like anyone else.

[csense]

The Left has always sought to abolish marriage and the family, a paradigm that goes back all the way to Marx and the Communist Manifesto. In the guise of legalizing same sex marriage, they have realized an age-old dream to up-end the existing social order.

Sad, isn't it...

To morally and legally sanction a system in which the children are designed without a mother or father. It's the epitome of selfishness, if you ask me...but then, what else is new when it comes to human nature, and our willful arrogance toward God.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the ping!

[razorback-bert]

I await the first group marriage.

[SunkenCiv]

Of course, the headline should read “California Supreme Court” instead of just “California”, but that omission is part of the propaganda campaign. Thanks neverdem.

[Octar]

Well done. Nice piece of work.

[Dilbert San Diego]

True. To me, this is a big danger with the gay marriage case, that one has to wonder, what definition of marriage can there be that doesn’t discriminate somehow?

The court is saying marriage discriminates against “gays”, so now marriage should just be any two people. But limiting marriage to two people discriminates against those who want polygamy or group marriage. And what about incest? Some may say that incest has been banned in the past due to fears about inbreeding, but then what about homosexual incest? In that type of relationship, there would be no concerns about offspring. Then, if you allow homosexual incest, how can you ban hetero incest? It opens the Pandora’s box.

Gays laugh about fears about polygamy and other future challenges to marriage. I am certain that re-defining marriage as has been done is not going to be the last time that marriage is re-defined. There is no definition of marriage that doesn’t exclude somebody who might want to live their life a different way. And now that we have set legal precedents that court challenges to the definition of marriage can succeed, other challanges will be encouraged.

[MrB]

There is one definition of marriage, and has always been.

Once that definition is declared invalid by the state, anything goes, there is no definition.

This is not a slippery slope argument.

It is the standing on the edge of a cliff vs jumping off of it argument.

[MrB]

Don’t forget that Ginsberg thinks the age of consent should be 11.

[MrB]

Simply put, there is THE definition, or there is no definition.

[MrB]

Nope, no one would want to “marry” an animal...

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,311079,00.html

[MrB]

Not until some judge says they can.

That’s what we’re looking at here.

Once you let a judge change age old definitions, then there is no reason to believe that they will stop there.

[purpleraine]

There’s no reason to believe that we have fully extended rights where they should be. So look for more disappointment.

[purpleraine]

If you want to continue this line of discussion, you'll have to pay more attention to my comments.

I did not say no one wanted to marry an animal. I said animals cannot legally give consent nor engage in contracts.

You can say we'll we have to avoid the slippery slope. Marrying an animal is not the same as marrying an adult human. That's not a slippery slope issue. That's a whole different dimension.

If you have a case to make for marrying animlas, it might be entertaining for you to present it here.

[purpleraine]

You are factually incorrect. There have historicaly been at least two definitions of marriage and they continue to date. Have you been reading the headlines from Texas. That’s a very old from of marriage.

[Travis McGee]

Simply put, there is THE definition, or there is no definition.

Bingo. Perfectly distilled.

And without THE definition, society's most important building block is destroyed.

[Travis McGee]

All questions society will be forced to digest.

[longtermmemmory]

the author makes a mistake.

the “strict scrutiny standard” is the standard applied to FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS.

(for example the recent DC gun case had the government regulators railing that the second amendment did NOT deserve the strict scrutiny standard despite being a fundamental right)

The question really is whether you have a fundamental right to create a marriage based on your ability to achieve recreational orgasm rather than benefit society by promoting the production of the future of society.

This is the ultimate in “takers” panacea. You now have a fundamental right to take from society and return NOTHING back.

[MrB]

It’s not a “slippery slope” issue.

There’s THE definition, or there’s NO definition.

[MrB]

There have historicaly been at least two definitions of marriage and they continue to date.

The only "proof" I've seen of these "two definitions" is some obscure reference in some monk's journal from the 1200's or some such.

It is not possible, given biological and theological facts, for there to be any other definition.

[purpleraine]

You seriously need to read up and get your mind out of one church history. Polygamy, a FORM of MARRUIAGE has been around for a long time, maybe as long as one-on-one marriage. I guess you didn't understand my refrence to the "news from Texas." Since you're over on the slippery slope side of the human rights argument, I don't think we have anything further to discuss.

As I said to the other true believer, anytime you're for restricting the rights of your fellow taxpayers, you might want to take a break and ask yourself how you got on the wrong side of liberty and the pursuit of happiness.