California Judge Reverses Prop 9: Discovers New Right

http://wmbriggs.com/blog/?p=2724 ^ | William M Briggs

[mattstat]

Marriage is not a “contract” between a male and female. That is, it may be partly that—the couple usually pledge allegiance of some kind, such as forswearing all others; again, traditionally—but marriage is not predominately an inter-personal contract.

Instead, marriage is a “contract”, or rather agreement, between the couple and the culture in which the couple lives. It is the culture which confers the special status of “husband and wife.” Marriage, culture says, is different, legally, religiously, and morally, from, say, two (or more) people merely cohabitating.

Another way of stating this is to say that it is everybody but the couple that confers the right of marriage. After all, the couple looks to society and asks each member of that society to recognize the couple’s bond, a bond to which is attached certain privileges and responsibilities.

To emphasize: it is other people, not the couple, that confers the right (and duties) of marriage.

Californians created a law which said, in essence, “We recognize traditional marriage only.” We can now see that ...

[skeeter]

Prop 8.

[RGSpincich]

So I guess Prop 8 is safe.

[LibFreeUSA]

For a minute there I thought this was a ‘parody’ of Prop 8.

[LibFreeUSA]

This kind of ‘anything goes’ thinking (one judge’s opinion negating that of 7 million others), will come around full circle one day to re-instate slavery again.

[Tennessee Nana]

I thought it was Prop 8

Did you cut and paste the headline ???

[newheart]

To emphasize: it is other people, not the couple, that confers the right (and duties) of marriage.

Unless I am completely misunderstanding his point, Mr. Briggs is mistaken, and his reasoning, not the judge's 'discovery' of a new right, is what will lead to opening the doors to any sort of relationship the human mind can conjure up. The argument that culture confers rights is the same as that of those who advocate a 'pure' democracy. If the most people say something is right or wrong, that's the end of it. It is, at its core, a might-makes-right argument and leads inexorably to a repressive and totalitarian state.

That is why we live in a republic which recognizes that there are values above those that derive only from the will of the people. In this republic those values are recognized to be granted by the Creator. Consider the difference between the French Revolution and the American Revolution to see the outcomes of the two different world views. Clearly we are on an arc toward the outlook of the French Revolution. The end will not be pretty.

What Mr. Brigg's argument fails to take into account is that while traditional marriage is a contract between a couple, and between the couple and society at large, there is another party with a substantial interest—God. Only with that reference point can a marriage be said to be anything other than a civil arrangement. And if it is only a civil arrangement then whatever the civil authorities, or the mob, determines is the definition of marriage, that is it.