Maggie Gallagher on "Gay Marriage" in California: Redefinition Revolution

National Review Online ^ | June 17, 2008 | Maggie Gallagher

[NutCrackerBoy]

We are not winning the battle against judicial activism. And the next use of the courts will be to harrass churches or anyone else who acts only in accordance with traditional marriage.

[Southerngl]

Why bother voting? The judges will just come along and say “YOU CAN’T DECIDE THE LAWS!! WE DECIDE THE LAWS! WE ARE THE GODS OF THIS COUNTRY!”

[BibChr]

In related news, the California Supreme Court ruled that puce was a primary color, and the square root of 20 is 8201.

[NutCrackerBoy]

We surely can make a difference. It only requires “counter-activism.”

[goldstategop]

Marriage, the rule of law, judicial activism and freedom are under fire. Its not about allowing Adam and Steve to marry. Its about weakening and marginalizing traditional religious belief about marriage, the family and children. There's always a hidden agenda with the Left and its not about redefining the family. Its about redefining the very basis of our society.

"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

[Dilbert San Diego]

And every vote counts in our courts too. The Mass. and Calif. decisions in their Supreme Courts were each 4-3 decisions. One vote decided to alter the basic unit of civilization.

Some compare the gay marriage cases to the Brown vs. Board of Education. But Brown was a unanimous decision that the concept of separate but equal was unconstitutional. Here, we see divided courts deciding not whether a law treats people equally, or conflicts with constitutional standards, but decide to change the legal definition of a legal term. Marriage is already defined in the law, and the courts are deciding to change the definition of marriage.

If they were intellectually honest, they would concede that monogamous marriage has always been a man and a woman, and they would admit that they want to change the definition. They would admit that marriage was not devised as a way to discriminate against the homosexual community.

[NutCrackerBoy]

Its not about allowing Adam and Steve to marry.

I agree. I've debated that point many times on Free Republic against folks who put forward the libertarian arguments that "gay marriage" could not affect anyone but the couples themselves.

[massgopguy]

Gay marriage doesn’t effect anyone else, unless..
They don’t mind the words Mother and Father being removed from the language.
They don’t mind the words Husband and Wife being removed from the language.
They don’t mind the words Natural Family removed from the language.
They don’t mind other people forcing your children to learn about Gay Sex at the age of 6 over your objections.
They don’t mind the Bible being illegal outside the confines of a Church.

[NutCrackerBoy]

Some compare the gay marriage cases to the Brown vs. Board of Education. But Brown was a unanimous decision ...

Brown is used as a knockout argument, even by many to the right of center, for all judicial activism aimed at helping out anyone with a grievance.

It is quite easy to counter that argument, but it involves a level of subtlety and attention span completely beyond those who sanctify the courts (and the press) in the religion of liberalism.

[Dems_R_Losers]

I am so thankful that my children are going into 6th and 10th grades. It's only a matter of time before the queers start suing to have gay sex taught to 10-year-olds in sex education classes, same-sex couples allowed to attend the senior prom and perform public displays of affection, ad nauseam. That sound you will hear is parents of young children stampeding out of public schools.

Next we will find some homo activist that we will have to "honor" like Martin Luther King, "Gay History Month" etc. etc.

[dan1123]

We are not winning the battle against judicial activism. And the next use of the courts will be to harrass churches or anyone else who acts only in accordance with traditional marriage.

And so God raises up Islam to incite violence to bring back some sense of morality.

[goldstategop]

If it was just a private matter, no one would be against same sex marriage. But marriage is important in the standards we set for two people, in how they raise their children and how they pass their family's values onto the next generation. And of course marriage relates to religious freedom and the notion marriage properly understood is the union of a man and a woman before God. The same sex activists do not just want Adam and Steve to marry. They want to end marriage and the family as we've always known it and in the process to do away with the values that its stood for thousands of years. So no - marriage is not just about what two people do or don't do together in the bedroom since their conduct reflects on God and on society itself. The Left would like to make it about sex; the argument goes a lot further than the mere exchange of bodily fluids between a couple.

"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

[1035rep]

Well said!

[goldstategop]

Exactly! If you want to make heterosexuality and religion optional, this is the end goal of imposing same sex marriage upon society. Who does it hurt? Every one. And we'd be subjecting our children to a vast, untested social experiment whose consequences no one can foresee. We can't afford to take the risk - that's why we must keep our understanding of marriage in the law and yes - rewrite California's constitution to make sure it does remain there.

"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

[1035rep]

And every vote counts in our courts too. The Mass. and Calif. decisions in their Supreme Courts were each 4-3 decisions. One vote decided to alter the basic unit of civilization.

Exactly, and especially for the SCOTUS.  If Obama were elected he would set this court back decades. Right now we have several lower court judge appointees backed up in committee by the Democrats. 

[ProCivitas]

As a matter of procedural ethics, homosexual relations are equivalent to commercial sex/prostitution, polygamy, and polyamory/fornication/promiscuity. i.e. it is consentual behavior among competent adults.

'That don't make it a good idea'(as Chris Rock might say), and that doesn't make it something our public would choose to recognize/honor as 'marriage'. And defining all or none of these behaviors as marriage is a 'public policy question' for citizens and legislatures, not a 'constitutional, civil rights question' for courts.

Re the 'public policy question' of calling any of these behaviors 'marriage' and according them public benefits, the reason we haven't is that most of us don't believe these behaviors do any good, much less serve the traditional purposes/function of natural marriage.

For a rough analogy, a group's demonstrated enthusiasm for setting fire to items of their own property isn't likely to earn them a public standing as licensed firemen.

[johnny7]

Well put...

[Luke21]

Five of the current USSC justices are Republican appointed. Likewise most of the gay loving SC in California is courtesy of the GOP. Your boy, McLame is likely to give us more Souters.

We are screwed because judges are our kings and queens. We are ruled by a judicial tyranny oligarchy. Our votes and whom we elect means little. Only the black robed star chambers will tell us how to live.

[Iron Munro]

The Founding Fathers never intended the courts to become the rulers of the land.

It is the responsibility of elected officials in the executive and legislative branches of the state and federal governments to stand up to unlawful usurpation of their powers by the courts.
Elected officials are the direct representatives of the people - it is their job to enforce the constitution and the will of the people.

But that has not happened.

In General our politicians are too busy looting the treasury and watching popularity polls to perform their real duties.
They fight among themselves over whose turn it is to steal the taxpayers money while the arrogant judiciary destroy the country without challenge.

[NutCrackerBoy]

Re the 'public policy question' of calling any of these behaviors [(commercial sex/prostitution, polygamy, and polyamory/fornication/promiscuity)] 'marriage' and according them public benefits, the reason we haven't is that most of us don't believe these behaviors do any good, much less serve the traditional purposes/function of natural marriage.

The bit about "doing any good" I think harms your argument. According public benefits to homosexual relationships is not a bad idea just because those behaviors "do no good."

Here's my argument. It is solidly better for everyone if a greater percentage of existing homosexuals practice safe, non-promiscuous sex with each other. Formal vows to be said by homosexual couples may push things in that direction. One can agree with all that yet still staunchly oppose judicially imposed accordance of marriage benefits to gay couples.