6 Points On The California Gay Marriage Ruling

1. This Is Social Liberalism By Judicial Fiat - This ruling came from none other than the Supreme Court of California, just as Massachusets allowed gay marriage by judicial fiat. Four justices (out of seven) should not be allowed to drastically change the entire definition of an institution that has existed for thousands of years of Judeo-Christian civilization and hundreds of years of American jurisprudence. Proponents of gay marriage cannot convince citizens of a single state to allow for same-sex marriage to be for anything but a man and a woman. So they use the succesful tactic of running to the more liberal courts to impose their will on the people. It is only through judicial activism that social liberals are enforcing their visions. This issue should be left up to the people of California to decide.

2. California Has Already Declared Marriage As Between Men and Women - Proposition 22was passed reflecting the will of a strong majority of Californians. Voters adopted the measure on March 7, 2000 with 61.4% in favor. The Proposition simply stated, "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." Yet the court violated the will of the people. Through democratic action and popular vote the people of the Golden State made their voices heard. I do not think it is the job of courts to redefine marriage especially when the will of the people of the State has been so clearly demonstrated. The people have spoken, let their word stand.

3. California Already Has Civil Unions - The issue in California is simply whether the term marriage should be extended to homosexuals. They already are afforded civil unions. So this is not an issue of obtaining some lost rights that heterosexuals have but rather one of what marriage itself means. Why judges should decide this is even more complexing.

4. Schwarzenegger Is Dead Wrong - Arnold Schwarzenegger responded, “I respect the Court’s decision and as Governor, I will uphold its ruling. . . I will not support an amendment to the constitution that would overturn this state Supreme Court ruling.” This governor has vetoed gay marriage legislation twice specifically because the legislature was acting against the will of the people as expressed in Prop 22. But for some reason when the court does the same thing, he fully supports it and further opposes any attempt to give the people a chance to respond through democratic means. This makes no sense at all. He is completely inconsistent.

5. Marriage Is Not A Civil Right - Marriage is certainly a matter of civil law. But it is not a civil right. The issue is what the government ought to do. The issue at hand is whether the basic assumptions, that in fact predated the law, about what constitutes marriage should be upheld. It is about whether the law is right or wrong. This being the case the issues of equal protection do not apply. Equal protection does not say anything about what constitutes marriage. Equal protection is about equal rights under the law afforded to all, not what the law is itself about. If this were the case then caretakers could claim to be married if they so wished. Business partners could claim to be married if it helped the business. Friends who live together could be married. But they cannot, because marriage has a specific definition. The laws as they are now, based on thier underlying assumptions and the definition of marriage, treats all citizens to whom it applies fairly. Blacks can get married. Jews can get married. Gays can get married too, if they marry a woman. But saying that because marriage doesn't include same-sex couples it is therefore a violation of equal protection is absurd. The law does not apply to them in the first place. If one wants to argue that marriage should have a completely new meaning, then they need a new law to bring about same-sex unions. It requires redefinition. Finally, I would like to say that it is nothing short of disgusting when gay activists use the the loaded term "civil right." The term alone brings about memories of the Black civil rights movement. Sometimes they go so far as to compare their cause to that noble movement. Homosexuals are not Blacks in the Jim Crow South. The laws of this land apply equally to gays, they did not apply equally to blacks. There are no signs saying "No Gays Allowed" and if Larry Craig was in a gay bathroom it was not because there was a sign outside declaring it so. To make these comparisons trivializes the history of segregation and racism.

6. This Will Help Republicans In The Election - There is no way this helps Democrats in the elections. Conservatives will come out in droves in November to try and pass a constitutional amendment in California. Obama will win California but this may force him to spend more money and energy than he may have expected. It puts the gay marriage issue back on the table in November. As a rule, when this issue has been on the table it helps Republicans. That's because judges are not the only people who get to vote.

NRO has a good article, too. Here's a couple short snips:

Gov. Moonbeam’s Revenge

By the narrowest of margins (4-3, just like Goodridge), the California supreme court ruled Thursday that Proposition 22, passed by 62 percent of California voters in 2000, is unconstitutional.

We therefore conclude . . . the California Constitution properly must be interpreted to guarantee this basic civil right to all Californians, whether gay or heterosexual, and to same-sex couples as well as to opposite-sex couples.

Call it Jerry Brown’s revenge. The former “Gov. Moonbeam” is now the California attorney general, the man charged with defending the laws of the state, including marriage. And Brown and his staff went out of their way to make sure that no good argument was left on the table in this case, explicitly repudiating, in the state’s brief, the argument that has won the day for marriage in state supreme courts as diverse (and “blue”) as New York, Washington, and Maryland: Marriage is a union of husband and wife because marriage has something to do with responsible procreation — bringing together men and women to make and raise the next generation together.

(snip)

On the legal front, this opinion breaks radically new ground: The California supreme court is the first in the country to find a fundamental right to same-sex marriage. Even European courts have rejected the idea that the human right to marry includes the right to same-sex marriage. In 2003, the European Court of Justice ruled, “Article 12 of the European Convention on Human Rights protects only traditional marriage between two persons of opposite biological sex.” The European Court of Human Rights and the United Nations Human Rights Committee have issued similar rulings. ...

In a slam-dunk for gay-marriage advocates, the Court also affirmed a sweeping equal-protection right to gay marriage, grounded in the right to have one’s family relationships accorded equal respect and dignity.

One of the core elements of the right to establish an officially recognized family that is embodied in the California constitutional right to marry is a couple’s right to have their family relationship accorded dignity and respect equal to that accorded other officially recognized families, and assigning a different designation for the family relationship of same-sex couples while reserving the historic designation of “marriage” exclusively for opposite-sex couples poses at least a serious risk of denying the family relationship of same-sex couples such equal dignity and respect.

Polyamorists, Muslims, and breakaway heretical Mormons can expect to find at a minimum new comfort in this sweeping moral support (if not yet legal support) for the dignity of their own favored family relationships, since the right to marry is the right to have one’s family relationship officially recognized and accorded equal dignity.

(snip)

I believe this ruling does open the door for other groups to have their relationships legally recognized as marriage. The reasons for this are as follows

The justices having stated they are not discussing limiting marriage to opposite sex couples then continue on to discuss the constitutional right to marry under the California constitution. So are we talking about marriage or what the State may designate as marriage? As in the Mass. ruling the discussion is about the individual’s right to marry in light of constitutional guarantees of autonomy and individual liberty. However unlike the Mass ruling the California ruling makes no mention of those rights being subject to regulation for the sake of public health, safety and welfare.

If taken at face value the ruling means that the right to marry is such an essential part of individual liberty the legislature has no authority to take away or deny that right. No qualifier is included. Also since the matter under discussion is not same sex marriage but what the State may call same sex unions. The statement is not modified or limited by the Justices indicating this right is discussed only in how it pertains to same sex couples wanting to marry. It is actually a separate discussion not dependent on the preceding one and could perhaps be applied to other groups seeking to have their unions called marriage.

It is also significant that the statement speaks only of the right of the individual not the right of the same sex couple. “With the person with whom the individual has chosen to share his or her life” certainly leaves open to interpretation more than a person wanting to marry someone of the same sex. Especially when the discussion is not modified by an introduction that makes clear such discussion pertains only to same sex marriage. The justices have already said the discussion is not about that. So their statements on marriage are broad and general not narrow and specific.

“As discussed below, upon review of the numerous California decisions that have examined the underlying bases and significance of the constitutional right to marry (and that illuminate why this right has been recognized as one of the basic,inalienable civil rights guaranteed to an individual by the California Constitution),we conclude that, under this state’s Constitution, the constitutionally based right to marry properly must be understood to encompass the core set of basic substantive legal rights and attributes traditionally associated with marriage that are so integral to an individual’s liberty and personal autonomy that they may not be eliminated or abrogated by the Legislature or by the electorate through the statutory initiative process. These core substantive rights include, most fundamentally, the opportunity of an individual to establish — with the person with whom the individual has chosen to share his or her life."

The justices do continue to recite history of marriage in California law including the ban on incestuous marriages, etc. But it does this only as an historical anecdote. Not as an affirmation of the State’s power to regulate marriage. They then continue to point out the disagreement over the scope and meaning of the State’s constitutional right to marry. And here is where red flags ought to be raised. For the justices are very specific in saying the right which is being discussed is not the right of same sex couples to marry but the right to marry without limiting qualifications. This moves that right beyond the scope of same sex or opposite sex couples.

“From the beginning of California statehood, the legal institution of civil marriage 11 has been understood to refer to a relationship between a man and a woman. — … [listing, as marriages that would be considered “incestuous, and absolutely void,” marriages “between brothers and sisters of the one half as well as the whole blood” and “between uncles and nieces, [or] aunts and nephews…"

Although all parties in this proceeding agree that the right to marry constitutes a fundamental right protected by the state Constitution, there is considerable disagreement as to the scope and content of this fundamental state constitutional right."

"The flaw in characterizing the constitutional right at issue as the right to same-sex marriage rather than the right to marry goes beyond mere semantics..."

"For this reason, in evaluating the constitutional issue before us, we consider it appropriate to direct our focus to the meaning and substance of the constitutional right to marry, and to avoid the potentially misleading implications inherent in analyzing the issue in terms of “same-sex marriage.”

Now and only now do the justices discuss the authority of the legislature to regulate marriage. But it limits this regulation to the State having incentives to marry and help couples stay married. Which rather narrows the role the State may play in such regulations. It basically say the State realizes marriage is a worthy institution to be encouraged and protected by the State. It does not say the State can decide what relationship may be called marriage. And indeed that is the issue before the Court. Again the justices come back to the contention that marriage is a basic constitutionally protected civil right outside the scope of the legislature to alter or amend. The justices are not limiting their discussion to same sex marriage. This discussion encompasses every individual’s right to marry. The consent of the legislature in this matter is moot. They can not abridge a right. You have the right to marry regardless if the legislature establishes a form for such a marriage. They do not create the right for you to marry, you already have that right.

“California decisions have recognized that the Legislature has broad authority in seeking to protect and regulate this relationship by creating incentives to marry and adopting measures to protect the marital relationship. If civil marriage were an institution whose only role was to serve the interests of society, it reasonably could be asserted that the state should have full authority to decide whether to establish or abolish the institution of marriage (and any similar institution, such as domestic partnership). In recognizing, however, that the right to marry is a basic, constitutionally protected civil right — “a fundamental right of free men [and women]” (Perez, supra, 32 Cal.2d 711, 714) —the governing California cases establish that this right embodies fundamental interests of an individual that are protected from abrogation or elimination by the state.41 Because our cases make clear that the right to marry is an integral component of an individual’s interest in personal autonomy protected by the privacy provision of article I, section 1, and of the liberty interest protected by the due process clause of article I, section 7, ... and cannot properly be understood as simply the right to enter into such a relationship if (but only if) the Legislature chooses to establish and retain it.”

The justices reiterate the right of marriage is for all individuals as well as couples and brings up the traditional understanding of marriage. Now here comes another red flag. The justices state that though marriage has always been limited to one man and one woman such tradition can not be used to justify denying a fundamental constitutional right. That right is the right to marry not the right for same sex couples to marry. They do not say denying gays the right to marry can no longer be justified by appealing to tradition. Rather they say tradition can not be used to limit the right to marry to being the right to marry a person of the opposite sex. This again puts the scope of discussion well beyond the rights of same sex couples to marry. It certainly could give rise to models of marriage that go beyond a couple relationship whether same sex or not.

“In light of the fundamental nature of the substantive rights embodied in the right to marry — ... — the California Constitution properly must be interpreted to guarantee this basic civil right to all individuals and couples, without regard to their sexual orientation.44 It is true, of course, that as an historical matter in this state marriage always has been limited to a union between a man and a woman. Tradition alone, however, generally has not been viewed as a sufficient justification for perpetuating, without examination, the restriction or denial of a fundamental constitutional right. For similar reasons, it is apparent that history alone does not provide a justification for interpreting the constitutional right to marry as protecting only one’s ability to enter into an officially recognized family relationship with a person of the opposite sex.”

The red flags continue to dot the landscape when the justices again make clear the designation of marriage can not only apply to opposite sex couples. They also assert that understanding of marriage is dependent on prevailing societal views which too often may mask inequalities. Now how can such a statement not be used in the future to argue for polygynous marriages? They seem to be saying morals and mores are evolving so using them as a basis for marriage laws is problematic and subject to change.

“… Because, until recently, there has been widespread societal disapproval and disparagement of homosexuality in many cultures, it is hardly surprising that the institution of civil marriage generally has been limited to opposite-sex couples and that many persons have considered the designation of marriage to be appropriately applied only to a elationship of an opposite-sex couple."

Although the understanding of marriage as limited to a union of a man and a woman is undeniably the predominant one, if we have learned anything from the significant evolution in the prevailing societal views and official policies toward members of minority races and toward women over the past half-century, it is that even the most familiar and generally accepted of social practices and traditions often mask an unfairness and inequality that frequently is not recognized or appreciated by those not directly harmed by those practices or traditions. It is instructive to recall in this regard that the traditional, well-established legal rules and practices of our not-so-distant past (1) barred interracial marriage,71”

Now here is their conclusion. You will notice gives no definition of marriage but simply states what no longer can be exclusively designated as marriage. They do say the designation applies to same sex and opposite sex. What it does not say is that this designation is limited to those scenarios only. Leaving it open for future expansion.

“Accordingly, in light of the conclusions we reach concerning the constitutional questions brought to us for resolution, we determine that the language of section 300 limiting the designation of marriage to a union “between a man and a woman” is unconstitutional and must be stricken from the statute, and that the remaining statutory language must be understood as making the designation of marriage available both to opposite-sex and same-sex couples. In addition, because the limitation of marriage to opposite-sex couples imposed by section 308.5 can have no constitutionally permissible effect in light of the constitutional conclusions set forth in this opinion, that provision cannot stand.”

The above is an opinion I offered on a forum where most of the participants our liberal They being liberal have no concept of the separation of powers or of how to parse a ruling to see if it is general or specific in its application.

Proposition 22, which defined marriage to be between a man and a woman and adopted by California voters on March 7, 2000 with 61.4% in favor, was hijacked along with the California Legislative Branch by the Tyrannical Justices of the California Supreme Court which legislated from the bench in direct violation of the California Constitution and managed to null the will of the people and declare Proposition 22 unconstitutional. It only took four tyrannical traitors to wrest the will of the citizen of California, these four judges are either being bribed, or blackmailed by the degenerates or they are homosexuals themselves.

Writing for the majority, Chief Justice Ronald M. George said: “In light of the conclusions we reach concerning the constitutional questions brought to us for resolution, we determine that the language of section 300 limiting the designation of marriage to a union “between a man and a woman” is unconstitutional and must be stricken from the statute, and that the remaining statutory language must be understood as making the designation of marriage available both to opposite-sex and same-sex couples.”

The black robed tyrants had the audacity and the recklessness to stick their tongues to the majority of California voters and without an ounce of shame declared that a marriage between a man and a woman is unconstitutional, but marriage between a man and a woman becomes constitutional when coupled with same-sex couples, what a bunch of crap, these judges must believe that the California populace are nothing more than a bunch of moronic retards.

The people of California must demand the heads of these tyrants, they should be unceremoniously thrown out of the California Supreme Court and they should be forced to sweep the street of San Francisco for the rest of their wretched lives.

If unrestrained, someday in the near future these dishonorable black robed tyrants will grant the salivating perverts in a silver platter the age of consent lowered to eight years of age. Eureka, now the degenerates will be free to marry innocent little boys, which would be the pinnacle of all perversions, and also would open the doors to all kinds of unimaginable atrocities. How would you react Mom, Dad when someday Johnny, your little nine years old says to you? Good old Fred our next-door neighbor and I are getting married. It will happen very soon, check it out at www.nambla.org the North American Man/Boy Love Association.

Americans must reintroduce the Word of God in Public Education, also they must reverse legalized “premeditated murder” on demand, and they must agree with God with one mind and write it into the law of the land that homosexuality is an abomination and by overthrowing Executive Order 13087 signed by President Clinton, who with Bible in hand bypassed the U.S. Congress and the populace and inflicted on society one of the many things God abhors the most, cramming homosexuals, bisexuals, and the transgendered in the federal and civilian workforce, in an attempt to normalize what once was cosidered an immoral and filthy addiction. Homosexuals must also be prevented from corrupting the minds of the youth, therefore they must be prohibited to adopt, coach, teach or have any direct contact with children, and they must be redirected back to the closets they came from, where most appropriately belong.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.