It’s not a good sign when a 77-page judicial opinion contains a falsehood in its first sentence. Judge Stephen Reinhardt, the most notorious liberal activist on the oft-overturned Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, begins his opinion for the 2–1 majority in the California same-sex-marriage case, Perry v. Brown, thus: “Prior to November 4, 2008, the California Constitution guaranteed the right to marry to opposite-sex couples and same-sex couples alike.” This is only true in a legal fantasy land in which the California supreme court’s unilateral creation of a right to same-sex marriage is treated as equivalent to the constitution itself.
Advertisement
Following that decision, the people of California went to the polls and passed Proposition 8, putting an end to the judiciary’s lawless 143-day experiment in permitting same-sex couples to marry. Clearly, the majority of Californians did not think the state supreme court interpreted their constitution correctly, which is why they chose to amend it to reverse the court’s decision. But in the ensuing months, the Ninth Circuit would have us believe, that earlier decision took on the same status as the state constitution. This is not a plausible legal theory.
That proposition is nonetheless central to Reinhardt’s strategy. His claim is that the State of California, in Proposition 8, did not merely decline to grant marriage rights to gays and lesbians but stripped them of an accepted right — and did so without any rational basis, inspired only by animus toward them.
This is a textbook example of the “ratchet effect” — for liberals, every change they desire is a blow struck against stultifying tradition while every change they do not desire is dismissed on the grounds that the new status quo is sacrosanct. In the courts, this pattern appears in a predictable on-again, off-again respect for precedent, depending on whether the precedent advances liberal aims.
There is something interesting about Reinhardt’s incrementalism in this ruling. He ignored the broad due-process reasoning of district judge Vaughn Walker in the court below and chose instead to base his ruling on the narrow ground that in a state that permits recognition of same-sex couples’ unions with all the “incidents of marriage,” it is a violation of equal protection to “deprive” them of the powerfully symbolic label of “marriage” itself. Which is to say, the judge finds an alleged animus against homosexuals in the very electorate that has invested them with such generous domestic-partnership rights. Reinhardt offered no opinion on whether a state that has provided no legal recognition of same-sex couples’ relationships would be in violation of the Constitution. Roughly half the states in the Union fit that description.
Reinhardt’s incrementalism is squarely aimed at Justice Anthony Kennedy, whose 1996 opinion for the Court in Romer v. Evans (overturning Colorado’s constitutional reversal of gay-rights antidiscrimination ordinances) is the constant touchstone of Reinhardt’s reasoning.
If the Supreme Court affirms the Ninth Circuit and takes its reasoning seriously, the result will be a house divided — no same-sex marriage wherever there are no same-sex civil unions, and a high risk of judicially invented marriage rights wherever there are such civil unions.
As Lincoln knew, on a fundamental moral question the nation must become all one thing or all the other. Ultimately, the people of the nation, who are the real owners of the Constitution, may have to weigh in on whether the truth about marriage — the union of a man and a woman to make a family — will prevail over the inventions of the judges.
Lawless judge and jackal Reinhardt will answer for this and every other evil deed at God's bench of justice someday, but we do not need to obey such decisions. It is time for states to ignore U.S. circuit courts on matters like this, and do it resolutely and publicly. The California governor and legislature will not, but some states will. If we do not defend our constitutions, no one else will.
Gay people, including a percentage who call themselves conservatives, are voters, too. This issue is about rights, not morality. I doubt that the Supreme Court will touch the Calif. decision, because it is so narrow. It will eventually reach the high court in another form, and I predict that gay marriage rights will be affirmed.
Actually it is about morality. California accorded Domestic Partnerships all the rights of Marriage. The California Supreme Court conceeded that, but still ruled in favor of Same Sex Marriage to grant the relationships equal dignity and respect with marriage.
There are no rights violations at all in the first place. A gay man has exactly the same rights that a straight man has. Both can marry whatever woman they choose to marry. This argument is about neither rights nor morality. This argument is about usurpation in a blind attempt at acceptance (acceptance that has already been given, which makes this even more bizarre).
Legal union for gays is perfectly acceptable and would not be an issue for voters anywhere. None of us care if a gay man wants to go buy a house for another gay man he hates. It's apparently the American way.
The thing that is unacceptable is the redefinition of the word "Marriage". A gay union is not a marriage. Period. Come up with another word for a gay union, and nobody would give a hoot about it. But that's not the point is it? The point is to create as much furor as possible. It's like a child throwing a tantrum even though they already have what they want. Gays seemingly want to appear downtrodden. They want retribution for years of abuse. I can't blame them for being bitter, it's understandable. However, being bitter does not progress the state of acceptance nor does it lead to productive change. It only leads to more bitterness. One could honestly say that gays hate all who oppose their agenda yet those who desire to block the use of the word marriage to describe a gay union do not hate gays. Funny that, isn't it?
By your argument, there's nothing wrong with banning interracial marriage either. Everybody would have the equal right to only marry people of their own race. Luckily the Supreme Court disagreed.
"It's like a child throwing a tantrum even though they already have what they want."
Is this ignorance or a lie?
If civil unions provided all the legal benefits of marriage, there would be no conversation. But of course, civil unions don't have all those benefits.
Liberals love to pretend that same-sex marriage is "no big deal" and that those who think otherwise are ignorant, obsessed homophobes. Among those liberals are many who care nothing about homosexuals per se; they are simply concerned about promoting the monolithic secularist state, in which they rule from on high.
America was once a republic. Sic transit gloria mundi.
Ye Gods, you people are such hypocrites. It's judicial activism if you don't agree, but if you like the decision, you are full of praise. You say make it a legislative choice and then when a legislature votes for something you don't like, you clutch your pearls and scream. Same sex marriage is here and inevitable and it ain't going away. Deal with it and focus on your own marriages. THAT's pro-family.
If you're right than certainly polygamy will soon follow, no?
And that will benefit society how, exactly? And if not, exactly what reasoning will prohibit the inevitable polygamist challenge from using all the "civil rights" arguments applied in the homosexual argument for marriage?
the only thing that affects, and matters to me, and my wife, about our marriage is our own behavior within the context of our marriage. There is nothing anyone else can do that really impacts that.
So if someone can explain to me why someone else's marriage, be it opposite sex, sames sex, or even for that matter polygamous, would have any impact on MY marriage, the love I have for my wife, and the relationship MY wife and I have together, then I might be able to buy into the notion that gay marriage is bad.
So there it is, the open invitation to really explain that to me, and try to convert someone.
I don't have time to try to "convert" you, but much has been written on the subject. I suggest you begin with Robert George and his colleagues at First Things. The short answer, though, is that it may well have nothing to do with YOUR marriage. It is not just about you at all, but about our children and our civilization. Are you unconcerned with matters of civilizational importance as long as they don't affect YOUR marriage?
Simple. You take the view that isolationism is somehow tantamount to an acceptable position. Yet you still must live beyond your relationship with your wife and within the broader society. If the core institution of that society is now cast aside - despite all precedent - there is naturally a cause and effect that will indeed impact you (and may very well come back to bite you in the behind).
Why do we have this thing called "marriage"? It is nothing more than a legal contract that allows certain priviledges - all of which can be obtained by any two parties, albeit using a more cumbersome legal process (setting up partnership agreements, wills, etc.) Yet we grant these privilidges because society (that you are presumably a part of) has a vested interest in promoting nuclear familes (that's 1 mommy + 1 daddy). And while not all marriages result in offspring, the vast majority do, so we don't eliminate the institution in order to meet the exceptions.
By definition, none of the unions that you list - be they same sex, polygamist or polyamorous - can result in a nuclear family. So we afford these legal priviliges in order to denote that a nuclear family is somewhat "special".
If you believe that such a structure is not special - despite millenia of experience across all civilization who have thrived to the contrary - please familiarize yourself with the statistics on Black America, where 70%+ of the children grow up in non-nuclear households.
The concept here is not one of "rights" - a gay person can marry a person of the opposite sex if they so choose and the law makes no provision against this. Rather, it is a question of definition - not all unions are "special" in that only nuclear unions contain the implicit state interest in the raising of children. There is simply no state interest in any other form of union.
This does not imply prohibition. In a free society, people can arrange their lives in whatever form floats their boat. It is about granting state sanction - something that the majority of citizens of CA, for one, have affirmed as only being granted to "special" unions - those that are a requirement if civilization is to continue and to thrive.
Of course, you can say "live and let live". But to provide state sanction is to also say that there is no longer a "special" purpose in raising children in an enviroment in which all research has shown is best for their care and stability. Simply put, if we're all equal, than none of us is special. Again, see Black America for an example of what happens when you take that approach.
We may not like to concede it - but we are all effected by social norms. Same Sex Marriage supporters won't settle for Civil Unions precisely because they want to change the social norms. 3 ways Same Sex Marriage will shift the culture:
1) It will increase marital instability by severing any remaining link between procreation/children and marriage, leaving just an emotional bond to hold the institution together. Since emotions are not as consistent as the biological facts, Marriage rates will decline, and divorce will go up. Many people asked the same question about No Fault Divorce " How will somebody else's divorce effect my marriage?" Well it sure effected somebodies marriage as marital instability skyrocketed after introduction of No Fault Divorce.
2) Same Sex Marriage obscures the value of opposite sex parenting as an ideal
The majority of Social Science Studies confirms a union of husband and wife is the most appropriate environment for the bearing and rearing of children. Same Sex Marriage would abolish this ideal, saying that a household of two women or two men is, as a rule, just as appropriate a context for child rearing, and even open the door to genetic engineering.
3) Same Sex Marriage would threaten moral and religious freedom, requiring The State to view traditional marriage supporters as bigots who make groundless and invidious distinctions. Parents could not object to Same Sex Marriage being taught in schools, adoption clinics would be shut down, and religious schools and institutions would lose their non-profit tax-exempt status.
Under same-sex marriage you are no longer legally "husband" and "wife." You are legally "partner A" and "partner B." The gender distinctions that we make in traditional marriage will have to be eliminated, and this will have consequences. One author puts it this way:
"All rights, privileges, protections, and expectations that flow from being a wife and mother will be legally flattened and have no legal standing or basis. There will only be “partners” and “parents.” There can be no legal distinctions between genders under the new definition of marriage. This will be something new under the sun. Making same sex relationships legally indistinguishable from opposite sex relationships will require this. Society may drift along for a number of years with old habits, but over time plaintiffs, their attorneys, and jurists will be discover, implement, and impose this new reality. The culture will also be nudged along by the new legal reality. Can only one partner in the marriage conceive a child and bear the burdens of pregnancy? That will be legally irrelevant. Can only one partner lactate? That will be legally irrelevant. Different biological clocks? Irrelevant. Hormones that dispose one party to be nurturing towards her own child? Irrelevant. Different economic realities for men and women? Irrelevant."
We enter a "brave new world," and it is impossible to predict what all the consequences may be.
Gay marriage is NOT "inevitable." It has only existed by judicial fiat in this present century, and has never been given legal status or recognition in any civilization at any time prior to this century.
And why should it be? You seem to think that it is widely accepted in this country, yet every state that has put the question to its voters prior to any judiciary making a nonsensical ruling has found the voters answering "no" to the question. Why is this so hard for nonsensical types like you to accept? In Iowa, where the justices of the Supreme Court reached into their hip pockets to rationalize some kind of "right" to gay marriage, the voters recalled the three justices key to that ruling. Nothing is "inevitable" except death and taxes, and you need to open your eyes.
The planet would be much better off without fools like yourself.
