18 Conclusions to Take Away from California Supreme Court’s Decision to Constitutionalize Same-Sex ‘Marriage’

1— The court parroted bromides commonly tendered by the homosexual agenda, including: comparing restrictions of same-sex “marriage” to past laws barring interracial marriage, and same-sex “marriage” does not impact heterosexual marriage. Race cannot be compared to homosexuality because no one is born homosexual. The court re-defined “marriage” for everyone, including heterosexuals, and it rendered meaningless the gender of fathers, mothers and children.

2—The court did not accept the argument that marriage is fundamentally about raising children, and it argued that through adoption and assisted reproduction individuals incapable of bearing children are capable of raising children. This logic fails to recognize that both genders contribute in unique ways to the psychological development of children.

3—The court said marriage is basically about individual happiness. This logic discounts children and fails to recognize that marriages based primarily on personal happiness are lacking in depth and contribute to the high divorce rate.

4—The court a) cited the dissent of a New York Supreme Court justice who last year argued that tradition is not a sufficient argument for maintaining the status quo of heterosexual-only marriage; and b) rejected the Court of Appeals’ basis for using the absence of historical or precedential support for same-sex “marriage.” If history and tradition are accorded so little weight, then why do courts go to such great lengths to cite precedents?

5—The court cited changes in the State of California’s understanding and legal treatment of homosexuals and asserted that homosexuals are fully capable of entering into the kind of loving and enduring committed relationships that may serve as the foundation of family. These relationships are actually less likely to last, more fraught with behavioral problems, more infidelity, more likely to end quickly and less likely to provide stability for children in the home.

6—The court dealt with the state’s Domestic Partner Act at great length only to conclude the act did not have a significant impact on its decision. Because the state legislature had already enacted a comprehensive domestic partnership law granting to same-sex couples virtually all of the substantive legal rights and benefits enjoyed by opposite-sex couples, the plaintiffs were relieved of the burden of presenting a constitutional challenge to obtain those rights and benefits. This indicates that the Left won this case by making incremental gains in the past.

7—The court referred to a 1972 constitutional amendment adding “privacy” to the “inalienable rights” of all Californians and said the state constitutional right to marry now falls within an individual’s interest in private autonomy. The privacy argument could be used to defuse any state law, but was selectively used in this example of judicial activism.

8—The court cited past court decisions and the United Nations for recognition of the family as the basic unit of society and then assumed any adult coupling can achieve these ideals. The ideals cited were established by heterosexual marriage over the annals of time and have never been equaled by homosexual parenting.

9—The court ruled that the right to marry represents the right of an individual to establish a legally recognized family with the person of one’s choice and as such is of fundamental significance to society and to the individual. The court cited no social science studies to show that alternative family forms provide the same benefits to society contributed by heterosexual-headed families. The burden of proof still remains with the court.

10—The court recognized an individual’s “opportunity to live a happy, meaningful and satisfying life as a full member of society” as grounds for granting all individuals and couples without regard to sexual orientation the right to marry. This thinking opens the door for polygamy and all manner of marital arrangements.

11—The court rejected the plaintiffs’ claim of “sex discrimination” as it relates to the California equal protection clause, but it insisted that “the current California statutes realistically must be viewed as discriminating against gay persons on the basis of their homosexual orientation.” The court also stated that heterosexual and homosexual persons have the legal right to marry someone of the opposite gender, but nevertheless insisted that behavior was applicable to the equal protection clause.

12—The court ruled that denying “marriage” to same-sex couples amounts to “second-class citizenship.” Nomenclature matters, and states should continue to protect traditional marriage and oppose counterfeit forms of “marriage.”

13—According to the court, the circumstance that the majority of Californians voted in favor of retaining the traditional definition of marriage does not exempt the statutory limitation from constitutional review, nor does it demonstrate that the voters’ objective represents a constitutionally compelling state interest for purposes of equal protection principles. This is judicial arrogance at its highest.

14—The court stated that in the past, interracial marriage was banned, women were excluded from many occupations and official duties and racial minorities were relegated to separate facilities and institutions. Race and gender are immutable characteristics, but one’s sexual orientation is not a basis for “minority group” status.

15—The court acknowledged a heavy burden of proof upon the state to demonstrate why homosexuals should not be permitted same-sex “marriage rights. However, the governor and the attorney general both approve of same-sex “marriage.” It is thus not surprising that the court found their arguments less than compelling.

16—The court stated that “affording same-sex couples the opportunity to obtain the designation of marriage will not impinge upon the religious freedom of any religious organization, official, or any other person; no religion will be required to change its religious policies or practices with regard to same-sex couples, and no religious officiant will be required to solemnize a marriage in contravention of his or her religious beliefs.” This is a hollow “protection” for those churches, businesses and individuals who don’t support this court’s decision. The U.S. Supreme Court declared that the Boy Scouts and other organizations have the right to determine their own membership, but that did not prevent cities, states and political parties from demonizing the Boy Scouts.

17—The court concluded that Family Code section 300 – which designates marriage as the union of a man and a woman – is unconstitutional and must be stricken from the statute. The remaining statutory language must be understood as making the designation of marriage available both to opposite-sex and same-sex couples. The limitation of Family Code section 308.5 “can have no constitutionally permissible effect in light of the constitutional conclusions set forth in this opinion, that provision cannot stand.” These actions circumvent the legislative process and the will of the people of California. As Justice Marvin Baxter dissented, the majority violated the separation of powers.

18—The majority placed great reliance on Perez v. Sharp (1948), a case that ruled in favor of interracial marriage. However, Perez and many other cases establishing the fundamental right to marry were all based on the common understanding of marriage as the union of a man and a woman.

California Supreme Court Marriage Decision – May 2008

Are You Getting a Divorce...

A new Gallup Poll shows that 70 percent of Americans think that divorce is morally acceptable. That’s up 11 percentage points from seven years ago. Good thing? Bad thing? Well the Gallup people seem to think it is a good thing: “People going through divorce often deal with a range of difficult emotions, including anger, sadness, trepidation, remorse, and a sense of failure. One issue becoming less and less a factor in that gut-wrenching mix is the sting of moral condemnation.” http://www.gallup.com/poll/107380/Cultural-Tolerance-Divorce-Grows-70.aspx

But if you ask the some 42 million children (since 1970) who have been devastated by their parents’ divorce, I think they might prefer a little more public “sting” if it were to help keep their family intact. The research is pretty clear: divorce has a dramatically negative impact on children with many suffering from its effects throughout adulthood. (See UFI’s Guide to Family Issues: Divorce) As I read polls such as this one, my heart aches for the children and for the adults who seem to be cavalier and clueless regarding the impact of divorce.

I am reminded of an experience that an acquaintance shared with me. She and her husband were having a tiff and their young daughter, unfortunately, was a witness to the louder than usual voices. As the argument wound down, the couple noticed that their daughter was particularly distraught. Upon inquiring, the young girl choked back her tears and said: “Are you getting a divorce….just like Cami’s parents? Please! Don’t get a divorce.”

The couple took the opportunity to gather their children together and explain:
“We are sorry that we were fighting and we’ll try to handle it differently next time, but know this: Your parents will NEVER get a divorce. It doesn’t matter what happens; we can fight, stomp out of the room, be very unhappy with one another… but we have made a commitment to one another and we will work through our problems. Divorce is not an option for us; so take that off your list of concerns forever.”

I believe her. I only wish that the rest of the country believed in their marriages as much.

And Its Not Even Halloween

Isn’t a half-human, half-animal creature the stuff of mythology? Well not any more. The British House of Commons has just this week passed an animal-human hybrid law. British MP’s have granted scientists the license to create any kind of hybrid (human and animal combination) including those derived from cloning, animal eggs and human sperm, genetic engineering and more. The Human Fertilization and Embryology Bill will allow researchers to empty an animal egg and fill it with human genetic materials. The caveat: these cloned human-animal hybrid embryos are then allowed to live for just 14 days before they are to be destroyed.

The folks in charge claim that this is necessary for the progress of embryonic stem cell research. Human eggs are just too hard to come by—too painful for human females to donate and too expensive for researchers to obtain. So we gotta have animal-human hybrids… It doesn’t matter that embryonic stem cell research has yet to yield even one successful medical treatment for humans and adult stem cell research (which doesn’t destroy human embryos) has given the world, at last count, some 75 new and successful treatments.

Has Britain shown us the slippery slope? Is the next step to legalize the “production” of biological chimeras—creatures that are composites of several animals, including part human. We are well on our way toward having the technology. We could create a creature made from an equal number of cells from two species that would look like one species, but contain the organs, genes and intelligence of another species. Just think of the possibilities and the positive benefits to mankind! We can then send these creatures to fight our wars for us, spend them to do space exploration, keep our full-human brothers and sisters safe from any dangerous or unpleasant situation. Or imagine some creature having the appearance of a human, but stuck with the intelligence of a cow.

The people who block the production of genetically-engineered (GE) foods to feed a starving developing world are the same people who champion laws such as this new “Frankensteinian” law in Britain. I guess they have a problem with genetically modified ears of corn, but don’t see any problem with animals having a human’s ears, DNA, or brain.

Dr. Wilkins: California Marriage Decision will Have Serious Long-term Consequences

Last week's decision by the California Supreme Court to legalize same-sex "marriage" is sending shock waves around the world. Dr. Richard Wilkins, a constitutional law professor and legal expert on marriage and managing director of the Doha International Institute for Family Studies and Development, Qatar Foundation, issued the following statement today to United Families International:

The recent decision of the California Supreme Court redefining marriage demonstrates the continued willingness of unelected judges to overturn – and frankly ignore – the will of the people on a vital issue of social policy that lies at the core of any successful society. The decision to alter dramatically the meaning of marriage in California will have long-term (and as yet not fully known but nevertheless serious) consequences. The decision, at the very least, flies in the face of mounting evidence that children need (and deserve) the care of a father and a mother. The decision also ignores the now undisputable facts that altering the historic meaning of marriage destabilizes the institution of marriage and weakens its vitally important social roles. For example, in countries that have had same-sex "marriage" for a significant period of time (e.g., the Netherlands), marriage rates are at all-time historic lows, the number of children born out of wedlock are at all-time historic highs and marital dissolution rates have reached all-time historic levels.

The People of California must act – dramatically and quickly – to place a constitutional amendment preserving marriage on the ballot. The meaning of marriage involves much more than a simple question of “equality.” Rather, it involves a broad range of issues that go to the very core of the social processes that make civilization possible. Those who support marriage as the union of a man and a woman are not driven by animus toward those with diverse sexual orientations. On the contrary, they are driven by well-founded concern for the future of their children, grandchildren and generations of Californians yet unborn.

Dr. Wilkins has in a most articulate manner put the California situation in proper perspective. The decision of the court was short-sighted.

California’s Supreme Court Declares Marriage Unconstitutional

California’s Supreme Court refused today to recognize a “compelling state interest” in traditional marriage:

"We cannot find that retention of the traditional definition of marriage constitutes a compelling state interest. Accordingly, we conclude that to the extent the current California statutory provisions limit marriage to opposite-sex couples, these statutes are unconstitutional."

By a 4-3 decision, the court struck down Proposition 22, which defined marriage as one man and one woman. That initiative won by a landslide 61-39 percent margin.

High courts in other jurisdictions, including New York and Maryland, have in fact found a compelling interest for their states to recognize only marriage between one man and one woman. The California court could have done likewise, but chose not to.

Justices voting in the majority were:

Chief Justice Ronald George, who wrote the opinion. He was appointed by former Gov. Pete Wilson, a Republican, in 1991.

Justice Joyce Kennard, appointed by Republican Gov. George Deukmejian in 1989.

Justice Kathryn Mickle Werdegar, appointed in 1994 by Gov. Wilson.

Justice Carlos Moreno, appointed in 2001 by Gov. Gray Davis.

Dissenting:

Justice Marvin Baxter, appointed by Gov. Deukmejian in 1990. He accused the court of substituting “its own social policy views for those expressed by the people.”

Justice Ming Chin, a 1996 Wilson appointee.

Justice Carol Corrigan, a 2005 appointee of current Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.

Today's ruling will have unintended consequences. The ruling will allow legal same-sex “marriages” in 30 days and puts men, women and children at risk. Taxpayers will pay out more in social agency costs as a result of today's decisions. The nations that do allow same-sex “marriage” have shown high rates of domestic violence rates in the homosexual community, and children do not fare well in homes headed by homosexual adults. The safest place for children is in the homes of married parents of opposite gender.

Abortion on Trial in South Dakota Again

You have to hand it to those avid pro-lifers in South Dakota. For the second straight election cycle, they have qualified a ballot initiative in an attempt to limit abortions in the homeland of Mount Rushmore – the Shrine to Democracy.

Nothing is more central to democracy than the right to life.

Initiated Measure 11, if passed by voters November 4th, would ban any abortions not deemed necessary to preserve the lives or health of women and in cases of rape or incest.

A more restrictive ban passed by the Legislature lost at the ballot box in 2006, 56-44 percent. That initiative lacked exceptions.

Credit the group VoteYesForLife.com for leading the effort to protect the unborn children of South Dakota for collecting the necessary signatures for the new ballot measure.

The 2008 initiative looks like a good bet to win. However, South Dakota will no doubt see a celebrity parade of pro-choice sympathizers coming into the state. We suggest that anyone with any doubts about the right to life for all pre-born children and the harms of abortion to utilize the following two resources:

UFI’s “Guide to Family Issues: Abortion”

Report of the South Dakota Task Force to Study Abortion