For the past two weeks, gay “marriage” has been the talk of the town – mostly as a result of the California Supreme Court’s infamous May 15 ruling, which has set the stage for homosexuals to tie the knot in June.
In a single day, four judges did that which they acknowledged they should not do – they redefined marriage because they believe marriage should be redefined.
And “We the People of the United States” – the centerpiece of the very Constitution that they have been called to uphold – are the ones that they have ignored.
“[W]e cannot find that retention of the traditional definition of marriage constitutes a compelling state interest,” Chief Justice Ron George wrote in the majority opinion. “Accordingly, we conclude that to the extent the current California statutory provisions limit marriage to opposite-sex couples, these statutes are unconstitutional.”
It should be absolutely obvious that, in making its decision, the California Supreme Court overstepped its authority. Even those on the bench have acknowledged this, including Justice Carol Corrigan, who said the majority “improperly infringes on the prerogative of the voters by overriding their decision.”
“[T]hat change is for the people to adopt, not for judges to dictate,” she wrote in a separate opinion.
Justice Marvin Baxter similarly noted how the majority, in reaching its decision, “violates the separation of powers, and thereby commits profound error.”
“California statutes already recognize same-sex unions and grant them all the substantive legal rights this state can bestow,” he wrote in a separate opinion. “If there is to be a further sea change in the social and legal understanding of marriage itself, that evolution should occur by similar democratic means. The majority forecloses this ordinary democratic process, and, in doing so, oversteps its authority.”
The only thing more regrettable than the conclusion of four activist judges is the process through which they came to it.
First, as Justice Baxter noted, was their improper reference to the race cases such as Perez v. Sharp — which found that California’s statutory provisions prohibiting interracial marriages were inconsistent with the fundamental constitutional right to marry.
“The civil rights cases banning racial discrimination were based on duly enacted amendments to the United States Constitution, proposed by Congress and ratified by the people through the states. To our nation’s great shame, many individuals and governmental entities obdurately refused to follow these constitutional imperatives for nearly a century. By overturning Jim Crow and other segregation laws, the courts properly and courageously held the people accountable to their own constitutional mandates. Here the situation is quite different,” Baxter noted.
Another egregious error committed by the majority was its assertion that retaining the traditional definition of marriage and affording same-sex couples only a separate and differently named family relationship WILL impose “appreciable harm” on same-sex couples and their children. Ignored, however, was the equally, if not greater, potential harm that such recognition will do to society as a whole. What makes the harm that homosexuals claim to experience greater than the harm that traditional family advocates claim children have and may suffer from a pro-gay culture that is more centered on sex than on strengthening the basic building block of society – the family? Continue >>
RSS
Comments
Unbelievable ignorance of people found to be commenting on this. The court CANNOT overturn an amendment put into place by the people. That would be judicial usurpation and tyranny. This is why the whole problem got to the ponit it is now. The people already made a decision and the court disregarded it. You don't have any idea how close to civil war we are. Don't use the word "Gay" the proper word is "sodomy" okay, call a spade a spade. Look, it is obvious that the liberal left and this "sodomistic" marriage thing is way wrong.The people are not going to be forced to have there children taught at the age of 5 that it is okay for same sex to marry. Not going to happen. The liberals lie,cheat and steal for force there views and get what they say the have a "right" to. Before you people go running off at the mouth about your rights you need to get it straight. God was not created by heterosexuals but He created them. Regardless of what anyone things or tries to fool themselves into God did not create homosexuals. He created human beings that make choices, some good and some bad. The Bible is clear on this. We did not create the bible. You know, this is a waste. You people will not be satisfied until you destroy everything. This country was created for a religious people and is wholly inadequate for any other. Having Freedom in this counry does not mean we can do whatever we want. If you don't like the way things are then you can leave because if you keep pushing your views it will only lead to one thing. The people have spoken in California and it is Constitutional, arguing it won't change a single fact. Is it war your pushing for? Thats what will happen. Are you better off dead from war? Better count your blessings and let it go.
This article, and the views expressed therein, is misguided and deceitful. As a matter of FACT, the fundamental right to marry in the US has been recognized as existing by the US Supreme Court in numerous cases, not all of which dealt with race. There have been cases involving the right of prison inmates to get married as well as one that involved the right of a man who was delinquent in his spousal and child support obligations to get married.
As much as you all would like it to be this is not a matter for "the people" to decide without judicial oversight. Certainly the people of California can vote yes on Prop 8 but that doesn't mean that it won't get overturned by the court.
As far as the rationale behind prohibiting gay marriage goes, there really aren't sufficient governmental interests to justify such a prohibition. In terms of federal law, the standard as applied to laws that specifically target gays is rational basis with bite scrutiny (because they are as of now only a quasi-suspect group rather than racial minorities who are suspect groups and entitled to the more stringent strict scrutiny). Under rational basis with bite a court will weigh the governmental interest against the individual interest thereby affected by the law. For governmental purposes, which by law may not be rooted in religious notions of what is sinful and evil, retaining the traditional notion of marriage is not more compelling than granting these equal rights to the gay community. Now, if there were an equally visible push from the Christian community to create a domestic partnership/civil union regime with identical rights and benefits to that of marriage then there might be a stronger case for there being some kind of governmental interest that is greater that the individual interests of the gays. If that were the case it would be merely battling about the use of the term "marriage" and it would be a much less meaningful debate. The unfortunate fact is that the "marriage" debate is really one about casting judgment about the propriety of the gay lifestyle and attempting to use the legislative process to inject "Christian sensibilities" into the governmental process where they don't belong. Religion belongs in our communities and personal lives not the legislative process.
tpique1 - God said slavery was ok too but I don't see many Christians supportive of that.
Our "problem" in the west is that ultra-conservative Christians want to push their religion on many who believe otherwise, which goes against the concept of democracy. We have checks and balances in our government, and we most certainly do not vote on everything. Many times in the past, judges have decided to write a law which went against the will of the people, but it was to better the minority. You complain that gays have no morals, marriage produces monogamy and love.
The Bible says homosexuality a sin, therefore it's a sin. Our problem in the West is that we think we're god and can dictate to Him what he believes. Because of our humanist thinking an indoctrination we attempt to set ourselves up higher than God's authority. If we don't like what the Bible says, we just simply exclude it. That is the greatest of sins. We in effect dictate to God from our own sinful perspective what is morally right and what is morally wrong. How dare we? did we die on a cross for Christ's sins or did He die for ours?
If He is God and sinless that means His moral absolutes stand and ours are fallible and wrong. He is God, not us, so He dictates to US what the laws are that govern His creation. We are incapable. We are fallible.
God said, therefore, homosexuality is a sin. If it's a sin, it can be repented of and changed. Not easily per se, but it CAN BE CHANGED. I think since God is God and I am not, He would know better than you or I what He's capable of.
"Since you think "choosing" one's sexual orientation is as easy as choosing a flavor of ice cream, do you think it would be just a possible for you to "choose" to be Gay?"
Absolutely yes. The Bible says my heart is deceitful and desprately wicked. Billy Graham once said the only difference between him and Charles Manson was the grace of God. I know myself just well enough to know I could choose anything sinful.
Did I SAY it was easy??? No! Adictions are one of the absolute hardest things to overcome. One gay guy I knew told me he knew it was wrong and he would most-likely end up in hell but he was just having 'too much fun' (his term for addicted) to give it up.
PhatDajuan-the reason I have some insight into the gay life-style is because I never 'sheltered' myself from gay people. I've worked with them, listened to them and even had some over for dinner with the family. Simiply put I got to know them. Jesus didn't hang out with the 'religious' as a rule. He hung out with everyone else! This is the Jesus I serve.
However, your arguement does prove a point I've been trying to make for some time. Do gay people who 'argue' against me bring their religious baggage to the arguement or are they interested in discussing the subject with ME?
You are a person just like everyone else. The Bible says that ALL have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. This means I am no better than you especially in the eyes of God.
DEAR DANIEL PAUL:
You write, "Until you PROVE being gay is not changeable there are NO parallels between civil rights and gay rights."
So let me ask you: Since you think "choosing" one's sexual orientation is as easy as choosing a flavor of ice cream, do you think it would be just a possible for you to "choose" to be Gay?
For someone who is ostensibly heterosexual, you seem to have some profound insignt into what it means to be Gay. I would be willing to bet that your did not make some conscious decision to be heterosexual, that it is something that just came naturally to you, and that you have never once been physically attracted to someone of the same sex.
And yet you seem to know something about the hearts and minds of Gay people that we ourselves don't know? Sorry, but I really can't take your argument seriously.
"If the government still considers "marriage" to be a religious designation rather than a legal one, it has no business making any laws concerning that institution."
It's not a matter of religion but of the majority who wrote and adds to the Constitution.
" 'Activist' judges put an end to segregation, and no one can tell me that there are NO parallels between civil rights and gay rights."
I cannot change what color I am. I cannot change what gender I am. I cannot change where I was born. I cannot change if I have a disability (although I can learn to overcome the effects of it) and religion is protected by the constitution.
Until you PROVE being gay is not changeable there are NO parallels between civil rights and gay rights. There are quite a few people who have gone from gay to straight who are living proof it is a choice.
Furthermore, it is not the purpose of government, nor of the Constitution, to make things "sacred." Those who believe that marriage is sacred usually choose to be married in a religious ceremony. Gay couples may or may not be making a religious or moral statement; though most Christian denominations do no recognize such commitment, some do. Regardless, Gay couples simply wish to be legally bound to each other by law. We wish to have all the same privileges of any lifelong couple.
If the government still considers "marriage" to be a religious designation rather than a legal one, it has no business making any laws concerning that institution. If, as confirmed by its actions, the government believes "marriage" to be a legal contract, it has no business denying that contract to any two people, no matter what their gender might be.
It is not the courts' job to uphold the precise will of the majority of the people. That's what elections are for. The job of the courts is to uphold the Constitution, regardless of whether the necessary decisions fall in line with the will of the majority. It is up to the judges to determine, without bias from the rest of the population, what constitutes equality under the law, or equal protection. It seems more than obvious to me that to exclude Gays from the institution of marriage is a clear violation of any notion of "equality," and I have yet to see anyone dispute that on a rational level. Therefore, it is not "activism" on the part of judges to declare that Gay and Straight couples should be treated equally under the law, rather it is an example of judges performing their rightful duty.
Thanks, biggie.
Which countries allow gays to openly serve in the military? Australia, Canada, United Kingdom, Israel, Switzerland among many. In fact, of the 25 countries that participate militarily in NATO, 20 countries allow homosexuals to serve openly in the military.
Of the 5 U.N. Permanent Security Members, two countries (France and UK) allow homosexuals to openly serve. Interestingly enough, countries which explicitly prohibit gays from openly serving in the military include Cuba, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Yemen and Venezuala.
The US and Russia have Don't Ask Don;t Tell, but this policy will likely be eliminated in the U.S.
In fact a Pew Research Public Opinion poll in 2006 showed that 60% of Americans favored allowing gays to openly serve in the military, 31% opposed.
The Military Readiness Act introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives would enhance the readiness of the U.S. Military by replacing the Don't Ask Policy with a policy of nondiscrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.
Ooops -- wrong site. Sorry....