Last year, federal court judge Vaughn Walker ruled that California’s Proposition 8 was unconstitutional because the U.S. Constitution mandates same-sex marriage. That decision is on appeal to the Ninth Circuit, but that court sent it over to the California Supreme Court to allow those judges to weigh in on whether state law allows the organization that campaigned for Prop 8’s passage to defend the law in court. This is necessary because neither the attorney general nor the governor will defend Proposition 8.
Today, the state supreme court decided that the Proposition 8 campaign has standing to defend the law, noting that California courts have consistently allowed “official proponents” of an initiative to “to defend a challenged voter-approved initiative measure in order ‘to guard the people’s right to exercise initiative power.’” The court explained that doing this
(1) assures voters who supported the measure and enacted it into law that any residual hostility or indifference of current public officials to the substance of the initiative measure will not prevent a full and robust defense of the measure to be mounted in court on the people‘s behalf, and (2) ensures a court faced with the responsibility of reviewing and resolving a legal challenge to an initiative measure that it is aware of and addresses the full range of legal arguments that reasonably may be proffered in the measure‘s defense.
The court continued:
Neither the Governor, the Attorney General, nor any other executive or legislative official has the authority to veto or invalidate an initiative measure that has been approved by the voters. It would exalt form over substance to interpret California law in a manner that would permit these public officials to indirectly achieve such a result by denying the official initiative proponents the authority to step in to assert the state‘s interest in the validity of the measure or to appeal a lower court judgment invalidating the measure when those public officials decline to assert that interest or to appeal an adverse judgment.
Basically, the court has turned back the plaintiffs’ attorneys’ attempt to throw the case, in collusion with recalcitrant government officials, and vindicated the principle that the people of California deserve to have their laws respected and defended in court.
The next step will be for the Ninth Circuit panel to rule on the substantive claim of Proposition 8’s constitutionality.
I disagree with Prop 8 on many grounds, but this ruling is spot on. A no-brainer.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseBrace yourselves for more loud wails of, "It's those dam* Mormons!"
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhen everything is marriage, nothing is marriage. In the civil sphere, that's the gassed-out and sterile future that supporters of the biologically illogical absurdity of same sex marriage are bringing to us and, sadly, to our descendants (at least those of us who have chosen to have and to rear children). Oddly enough, Mormons may be able to withstand this assault on generations yet unborn in ways that other groups cannot because Mormons have a distinctly religious form of marriage--exclusively heterosexual-- that is separate from but exists alongside the civil form. Thus, even after civil marriage has been neutered into a state of sterile irrelevance, Mormons should still be able to teach and pass on to their descendants the lessons and benefits of traditional heterosexual marriage, while absolutely excluding same sex marriage. I say "should" because it is always possible that an activist SCOTUS could decide that freedom of religion does not include the right of a religious body to exclude same sex marriage from its ceremonies and sacraments.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAs a supporter of marriage equality for Gay couples, I'm not particularly concerned about this. What do the supporters of Proposition 8 have in their legal arsenal? NOTHING as far as I can tell. They will quote Scripture, scream about "religious freedom," suggest that the human race is doomed to extinction if Gay couples are allowed to marry, and generally be hysterical. But at the end of the day, rational people will have to admit that there is really no difference between a married Gay couple and a married Straight couple other than the gender of the two people who have made the commitment. THEREFORE there is no Constitutional justification for denying law-abiding, taxpaying Gay couples the exact same legal benefits and protections that Straight couples have always taken for granted. And since most of those legal benefits come from the FEDERAL government (especially with regards to tax law and Social Security), this is not an issue that can be resolved in a piecemeal, state-by-state basis.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseTell me something, Chuck. Why is a civil union law not sufficient for you? There's not a single tangible benefit you cited there that can't be provided by a legal contract recognizing the right of a same-sex civil union. Go to the courthouse, declare yourselves a legal couple, problem solved.
In truth, that is NOT what you want. You want the psychological satisfaction of forcing others who don't accept the validity of your choices to CALL it marriage by codifying it into law. You can CALL a ham sandwich a giraffe also, but it the end of the day, you still have a ham sandwich. And you ain't "married," either.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseShawn- SPOT ON!
But I would take the real reason for the push for the redefinition of Marriage by Homosexuals one step further-
The ultimate end, which we are just now seeing the first fruits of in Western Europe, Canada and even here is to stifle religious freedom, and Christianity in particular.
When the laws says fake marriage and real marriage are the SAME (when they obviously are not) those who reject the law will have the law used against them on grounds of Discrimination, Human Rights etc.
Christians will be prosecuted, fired and harassed (as they have been in other countries that have adopted this "inclusive" vision of marriage) for Ungoodthink.
And that is the Ultimate Goal- to outlaw negative speech and thoughts of Homosexuality. Period.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbusePrecisely - lost in all of this "equal rights" chatter is the fact that even today, no one is preventing gay people from getting married - just not to each other, is all.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThat kind of thinking is what leads closet cases to marry (usually) unsuspecting spouses and (virtually) always leads to unhappiness. And you want to STRENGTHEN marriage?
Let's be more specific. Pretend you have an adult daughter and she comes to you and says "I'm marrying Sam" and you know Sam is gay. Are you going to give her your blessing or suggest perhaps she marry someone who might be sexually attracted to her?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHow would you know Sam was "Gay" if Sam did not tell you he was "Gay?"
With only about 1% of the population taking part in man on man sex I would be willing to bet my daughter would never be faced with this particular scenario.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseExactly, and that is the crux of the matter. I do not believe homosexuality is moral. However, I accept that in a modern, secular society, not everyone will accept what I deem as moral to be theirs. Hence, in America, we accept the diversity. However, as gay "rights" has evolved from the hatred of say the 70's/ 80's to a desire for "tolerance", I find that this political push has sought an even more substantial footing in society - acceptance.
That is not something I will ever do. My religious beliefs as a Catholic preclude me from doing so. Though I may wish goodwill toward all men, that doesn't mean I accept their wrongs as well.
As mandatory acceptance of homosexuality throughout all societal institutions is being perniciously pushed upon us through back room legal fiat, it is my guess that within 2 - 3 years, the first religious persecutions will begin. It will start with a "shot across the bow" at a Catholic University, as is done now with regard to abortion rights. Therein, teaching against homosexuality will be prohibited as it violates the law. Priests will either go to jail or the university will be denied federal funds or be shut down because of improper permits by the EPA. Then Catholic institutions such as hospitals and charitable institutions will be confronted through denial of tax breaks and shut down. Lastly, the Church itself will be assaulted through a frontal attack by the IRS wherein they will seek to deny the tax-exempt status of any Catholic diocese unless it formally and publicly disavows beliefs against homosexuality.
And, just as in the days after Christ, the views so espoused will lead to persecution aimed at those who are Christian and believe in the Bible. For those thinking that American society is homophobic, apply your inane bellicose talk somewhere else. Most folks just see it as pedantic fodder anyway. Go try out Sharia law and see where that gets you. In fact, irony of all ironies is that as the radical left increases its anti-Christian stance and allows radical Islam to take root with its Sharia horror, gays might find plain 'ol "civil unions" among us Christians a far, far more hospitable setting than life under a local Imam.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI live in Massachusetts where Catholic adoption agencies have been shut down for not accommodating homosexual couples. In my state a new law has been put into effect by the liberal governor instituting transgender rights that would allow for prosecution of anyone accused of discrimination. In my state in junior high schools there are gay teachers tearfully 'coming out' to the 12 year old kids in their seventh grade classes. In my state homosexual acceptance education is mandated curricula. In my state there are clubs in public schools for gays and transgenders. In my state children have lost the innocence of childhood to the aggressive agenda of a minority group due to the liberal support it gets. Ultimately it is very aggressively anti-Christian, and I guess that this is the ultimate problem. It offends the religious sensibilities of the majority of Christians, Mormons and Muslims to be presented with this strange social engineering. If homosexuality is not a form of mental illness why is it so bizarrely and obsessively injected into the lives of people who have no interest in it. I'm Catholic. I'm not interested in persecuting homosexuals, but I'd like my church to be left unpersecuted and my kids to be left unmolested by their agenda.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbusePowerful post, Jellybean. Thanks.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYOU: I live in Massachusetts where Catholic adoption agencies have been shut down for not accommodating homosexual couples.
ME: Those children never belonged to the Church. The state has an interest in their placement, and in this case, chose to not allow those who refuse placement with gays to continue on in thir responsibility. This disturbes me not at all.
YOU: In my state a new law has been put into effect by the liberal governor instituting transgender rights that would allow for prosecution of anyone accused of discrimination.
ME: Too vague.
YOU: In my state in junior high schools there are gay teachers tearfully 'coming out' to the 12 year old kids in their seventh grade classes. In my state homosexual acceptance education is mandated curricula.
ME: This is a problem with socialized education wherein the state sets a state morality, the moral codes of the parents be damned. This problem would cease nearly the instant a voucher system was put into place. Yes, I understand that there is no chance of getting a voucher system in Mass. any time soon. But that doesn't change the fact that the problem here is with socialized education, and not with marriage rights for gays.
YOU: In my state there are clubs in public schools for gays and transgenders.
ME: The horror. The horror.
Also, see above.
YOU: In my state children have lost the innocence of childhood to the aggressive agenda of a minority group due to the liberal support it gets.
ME: See above, unless you are talking just about the problem of having your children ask you why two men are holding hands or why her friend has two mommies. In that case, that's just the price you pay for going out in public.
YOU: It offends the religious sensibilities of the majority of Christians, Mormons and Muslims to be presented with this strange social engineering.
ME: I sympathize on the issue of socialized education. I really do. Until vouchers are available, the Church is going to have to figure out a way to make education more in keeping with your family's beliefs available.
YOU: If homosexuality is not a form of mental illness why is it so bizarrely and obsessively injected into the lives of people who have no interest in it
ME: Do I REALLY need to answer this one?
YOU: I'm Catholic. I'm not interested in persecuting homosexuals, but I'd like my church to be left unpersecuted and my kids to be left unmolested by their agenda.
ME: But persecuting homosexuals is exactly what has gone on in the past, even in Massachusetts. The last legs of institutionalized discrimination against gays, the ban on gay marriage, is almost gone. If the part of DOMA forbidding gays from collecting federal benefits goes, at least for people in Massachusetts and a few other states, it will finally be over. And if sharing a school with those who are no longer chased into the closet and participate in the marketplace of ideas along with everyone else, then remember what God said to Abraham and Come Out From Among Them.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYou've brought up an interesting point. If the attitude of same sex couples was a live and let live attitude I think that many Americans, religious or not, would be satisfied to mind their own business. Truth be told it appears to many Americans that the gay population has a much more aggressive stance toward the greater community at large. In Massachusetts there are obligatory homosexual education programs in the public school systems. These programs are directed at children as young as kindergarten. If members of the heterosexual community decided that intimate areas of lifestyle choice be the subject of education for young children sane adults would think of them as predatory. All dignity and sense of reason seems lost when a group of people feel that their intimate behavior should be scrutinized and accepted by the greater public whether they are comfortable with it or not.
That being said, I have a large number of relatives in Canada. From what they've told me both Muslims and homosexuals receive special protections from the government that lead to outright persecution of anyone who doesn't agree with them. This most definitely includes the Catholic church. You see no homosexual groups going after Muslim groups to get married in the local Mosque. To my mind, these two groups are on a collision course in Canada and Europe. Given that the Muslims are reproducing much faster than any other group, and given that the homosexuals are actively attacking the Christians, the people most likely to actually defend them and anyone else from real physical persecution, I can wager a good guess as to who is going to win in the end. At that point same sex marriage laws wont be an issue anymore.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseTell ME something, Shawn. Is it simply the word "marriage" that you're all up in arms over?
Let's say, for the sake of argument, that the Supreme Court ruled that there was no Constitutional justification for denying Gay couples the same legal benefits and responsibilities that Straight couples have always taken for granted, but that those benefits and responsibilities could be granted to Gay couples under a different term ... such as "civil unions." The rights under tax law, Social Security, etc. would be EXACTLY the same for Gay and Straight couples; only the terminology would be different. Opposite-sex couples would be allowed the option to "marry," and same-sex couples would be allowed the option to enter into "civil unions." Social conservatives could keep the term “marriage” for themselves, and Gay couples would be granted equal protection as specified by the 14th Amendment. AND of course those civil unions would be automatically honored in all 50 states, per the "Full Faith & Credit" clause of the Constitution.
Personally I wouldn't have a problem with that. But regardless of what teminology is used, you should ask yourself why law-abiding, taxpaying Gay Americans should be forced to subsidize all the legal benefits and responsibilities that Straight couples enjoy, when we are unable to take advantage of those same incentives to marry? Can you explain how this is remotely Constitutional?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI think we've found common ground, Chuck. To answer your question, YES, having the word "marriage" codified into law re: 2 individuals of the same sex is exactly my problem. Marriage is an institution, with a specific defintion, a man, and a woman. It's also largely a religious concept. If you want religion out of government, dont insist the government make a religious judgment and formalize what is not "marriage" as "marriage."
I'll go you one step further, one that will probably tick off readers who cheered my previous post. I have no problem if Congress decreed tomorrow that NO ONE is married. All currently existing marriages, hetero or homo, are now civil unions. That from this point forward, marriage is strictly a PRIVATE affair. The government will recognize you as a legal couple, with all the legal privileges in the way of taxes, hospital visitation, etc. Whether you are "married" is between you, your church, and whatever friends choose to recognize your relationship as such. But NO church is forced to "marry" you if they have doctrinal objections to doing so. Plenty of liberal denominations will do the deed for you. The government is out of the business of blessing one relationship over another.
How would that sound to you?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThat's the rational, libertarian solution, Shawn.
As a consequence, most dedicated SoCons would reject it because it effectively legalizes same-sex marriage. As you say, there will be plenty of liberal denominations that will marry same-sex couples, and as a consequence there will be same-sex marriages. Of course, so far as I'm concerned government has no business involving itself it what is effectively a social and religious institution. If it wants to create a public contract to assign certain responsibilities and rights to parties, great. Create that contract, and let the individuals who enter into it, their families, churches and synagogues decide what to call it.
The issue in the present case, as I've mentioned before, is that so long as government is involved and utlizing a word with the kind of social weight that "marriage" has, the very social weight of the word actually cuts AGAINST prop 8 supporters.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseDEAR SHAWN:
Your suggestion that the government declare ALL legally committed couples to be "civil unions" while leaving the word "marriage" up to religious institutions is fine with me. There are several churches in my little town that are more than willing to marry Gay couples, but this is irrelevant to me since I am not a religious person. My only concern is that Gay and Straight couples be treated equally under the law, as the 14th Amendment would SEEM to stipulate. I'm not interested in "forcing" anyone to approve of me. As a law-abiding, taxpaying American citizen, I'm interested only in being treated fairly under the law. My own "psychological validation" has nothing to do with it.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseShawn...spot on.
Kudos.
Exactly what I've been arguing for years.
If you want to save the institution of marriage, take it out of reach of the government.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"you should ask yourself why law-abiding, taxpaying Gay Americans should be forced to subsidize all the legal benefits and responsibilities that Straight couples enjoy, when we are unable to take advantage of those same incentives to marry? Can you explain how this is remotely Constitutional?"
It's not just remotely constitutional; it's clearly and completely constitutional. You can marry any day of the week, just like everyone else. Or you can choose not to do so, just like all the other tax-paying single people out there.
By the way, how are you any different, constitutionally speaking, from an asexual person who is not attracted to either sex and therefore decides not to marry?
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse