Posted on 05/29/2008 4:07:33 AM PDT by Kaslin
If you’ve ever wondered why liberals fight tooth and nail whenever it comes to confirming judges, just look to California.
There, in another outrageous example of judicial over-reach and leftist social experimentation, the state Supreme Court ruled on May 15 in favor of homosexual “marriages.” Specifically, it overturned a 2000 referendum on Proposition 22, in which California voters -- i.e., the people --affirmed, nearly 2-to-1, that marriage is the union of one man and one woman.
Sorry, voters: You only think you know best. Your judicial overlords know better. Now run along, like good subjects.
Whatever happened to government, “for the people, by the people”? Seems the judicial elite reign supreme in California.
It’s fairly obvious what is at work here -- a desire on the part of liberals to level the basic building block of society: the family. California already has a domestic-partner law on the books that grants same-sex couples all the benefits and privileges accorded to opposite-sex couples. The real agenda behind the decision to redefine the word “marriage,” as I point out in my book, “Home Invasion,” is to destroy the very institution itself.
Sound too strong? Then explain why a domestic-partner law wasn’t enough. No couple was being discriminated against. No one was hiding from the law. Homosexuals could set up house wherever they liked, and the law treated their relationship as if it were normal. But that wasn’t enough. All of us heterosexual yahoos had to go all the way -- and call their unions marriage. That’s what they really wanted. And it signifies nothing less than a societal sea change.
In a compelling analysis of the Court’s decision, The Heritage Foundation’s Jennifer Marshall, Daniel Moloney and Matthew Spalding, spell it out:
What is happening now is no minor adjustment, nor a slight change in degree that just extends benefits or rights to a larger class, but a substantive change in the essence of the institution. The court's decision does not expand marriage; it alters its core meaning. To redefine marriage so that it is not intrinsically related to the relationship between fathers, mothers, and children formally severs the institution from its nature and purpose, remaking the institution into a mere contract between any two individuals.
This helps explain why it’s wrong to assume this ruling centers on discrimination. It doesn’t. We’re doing more here than just renaming an already existing arrangement. What we call -- or don’t call -- marriage actually matters. And there has to be some objective criteria. It can’t be left to each individual to decide what marriage is; the state has a crucial role to play. Otherwise, why can’t a man marry his sister? Or his daughter? Or his dog, for that matter? Why can’t he have multiple wives?
The fact is, the California Supreme Court has indulged here in the purest form of judicial activism -- operating not from a desire to interpret the law as written, but to force the result it wanted from the beginning, regardless of whether it was correct (or whether it violated the will of the people).
According to the Heritage experts:
As with Roe v. Wade, this decision is troubling from three angles: on the process, on the reasoning, and on the substance.
* It was an instance of the judiciary usurping the political process.
* It was poorly reasoned, abandoning the original meaning of California's constitution in order to invent a right to same-sex “marriage.”
* It was wrong on the substance, comparing support for traditional marriage to racism, disregarding the nature and purpose of marriage, and ignoring the reasons for which the state has always set marriage apart from other household forms.
There’s a good reason marriage has always been set apart like this. It is, quite simply, the cornerstone of civilization. It is deeply rooted in nearly every society, blessed by all the world’s major religions, and proven over centuries to work best when it’s limited to one man and one woman. Study after study, many of which you can find on familyfacts.org, show marriage’s unique value. Raised in its loving embrace, children thrive.
That apparently means nothing to the judges who handed down this decision. But then again, they haven’t even shown respect for their own profession. They’ve abused their authority to do what they want -- never mind what the law actually says.
But their tactics may well backfire, says Heritage Senior Legal Fellow Robert Alt. “By removing the issue from the political branches and constitutionalizing the policy question, the court's decision makes compromise less likely and leaves a state constitutional amendment as the only possible response -- one in which same-sex marriage advocates are not likely to prevail,” he writes in a recent commentary.
In short, it’s up to the people. Let’s hope they rise to the challenge
"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
Ah, but that’s the part of liberalism (I should say socialism/secularism)that was alluded to in the beginning of the article, about liberals fighting tooth and nail. Unlike most conservatives, they never stop and they never give up. They’re as tenacious as pit bulls. True dedicated ones are like The Clintons or Grandhole of Michigan, or Balddickie of Maine, on and on...good example, besides the gay marriage issue, is smoker bans. They’re stopped, and the matter dies. Not. They merely regroup, come right back, and push for it again. Sometimes immediately, sometimes the next year, sometimes in a few years. If it’s in a state where the people are against it, they try to get the state legislature and the governor to push it through. In states where they feel surveys say the majority of voters want it, or it’s close-they get petitions up to get it on the ballot, usually in an ‘off’ year with low turnout. It’s stopped, they’re pushed back....but....a very slight bit less this time....and so on. And, eventually, one day, either through the ballot box, legislations changing hands, or present ones giving up, or if all else fails, in the courts-they get their way. They’re very patient, and don’t care if their goal takes decades. Very slowly, very incrementally. And hatred for the other side is what drives them. Hatred is a very useful tool if channeled properly.
People (most) get tired of fighting, eventually, and just give up. They go ahead and vote for something just because they’re tired of hearing about it. Look how many times Daylight Savings Time , despised by most,was put on the ballot before it finally passed.
The reward came in the form of three children playing in the back yeard, seeing them off to college and becoming good hard working citizens. It took a lot of hard work....something these "benefactors" don't get.
Now, not everyone wants children, or marriage and that's fine. But the majority do...and the "real way" to that goal is called "sexual relations" between a man and woman. To those who have "bearing" problems, my heart goes out to you...but there is something called adoption.
Great article....my feelings EXACTLY!
I think I read somewhere that the CA legislature is considering options re this decision. Who knows?
But if the “traditional marriage” definition is altered to include homosexuals, I’m drawing a bright line there. This is just the flashiest of many sick changes about to happen to our Constitution, our way of life, and ALL THAT. I can’t wait for reparations. /s
Does this sound old and crochety? Damn straight! I told you I just drew the line. Not changing the way I live, and if they don’t like it, they can come see me. >:[
“Daylight Savings Time , despised by most”
Who hates daylight savings time? Most people I know hate standard time. Nothing like getting off of work after the sun sets to give you the bleak realization that your life and its schedule are wholly and bizarrely twisted. Man was made for sunlight. Pretty simple stuff.
Fine, let’s leave it that way year around, then.
This is about benefits and acceptance of a deviant behavior and vilifying any that object to it. Yet hidden from view is the next step allowing homosexuals to have access to adoption of little boys. Remember what they did in the catholic church.
Isn’t there a petition for an amendment to overturn the overturners?
The saddest part is that 3 of the 4 judges who signed off on the abhorrent decision are allegedly Republicans. Obviously they come from the John Paul Stevens wing of the GOP. I’m beginning to think that there is more and more a need for a true Conservative party, called just that so there are no doubts about where legislators and judicial officials stand when they commit to the party.
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.