Update II (6/4): This just in: “California’s highest court has refused to stay until after the November election its decision legalizing same-sex marriage in the state…Conservative religious and legal groups had asked the California Supreme Court to stop its order from becoming effective until voters have the chance to weigh in on the issue…An initiative that would amend the state constitution to ban gay marriage has qualified for the ballot. Its passage would overrule the court’s decision.” (Source)
Update (6/3 @ 11:35 a.m.): I knew that as a result of this court decision, concerned Californians were trying to get an initiative on the November ballot that would define marriage as between a man and a woman. One of those 1,120,801 signatures belongs to my sister. Way to go, S! I am pleased to report that the initiative will appear on the November ballot. Tip of the beach hat to Randy Thomas.
But Californians already spoke on this issue. In the case I blogged about below, the California Supreme Court overturned Proposition 22, passed in 2000 by 61.4 percent of voters. The people speak, and the court overturns. So the voters will speak again on this issue in November. Make no mistake: this is a war, folks. Round and round and round it goes.
——————————————————————————————————-
Didn’t expect to see a title like that, did you? Read on, read on!
Briefly…
Last month, the California Supreme Court overturned a law prohibiting homosexual “marriage” by a vote of 4 to 3. (Download the 172-page document in PDF) The court declared that homosexual couples have the same “fundamental constitutional right to form a family relationship” as heterosexual couples. In California, marriage is considered a fundamental right. Make a mental note of that.
The court reasoned that the designation “domestic partnership,” with all the legal rights it entails, isn’t enough. Calling a heterosexual relationship “marriage” while calling a homosexual relationship a domestic partnership “poses at least a serious risk of denying the family relationship of same-sex couples such equal dignity and respect.”
The court contended that assigning the union of two men a different name than the union of a man and a woman “raises constitutional concerns not only under the state constitutional right to marry, but also under the state constitutional equal protection clause.” Make a mental note of that.
The court contended that “sexual orientation” is a suspect classification, therefore subject to review under a strict scrutiny standard. Under strict scrutiny, it’s almost impossible to justify any classification. For example, race is a suspect classification, and any law that treats people differently based on race will not hold up under review. The California Supreme Court has equated sexual perversion with race. Make a mental note of that.
Incestuous and Polygamous Marriages
As I read this opinion, I kept wondering when I’d run into the inevitable discussion about incest and polygamy. Those of us who oppose homosexual “marriage” often argue, with good reason, that allowing two men to “marry” opens the floodgate to allowing just about anyone to marry. I never found that discussion because there wasn’t one. Instead, there’s a footnote. A footnote. From page 79 (emphasis added):
“We emphasize that our conclusion that the constitutional right to marry properly must be interpreted to apply to gay individuals and gay couples does not mean that this constitutional right similarly must be understood to extend to polygamous or incestuous relationships. Past judicial decisions explain why our nation’s culture has considered the latter types of relationships inimical to the mutually supportive and healthy family relationships promoted by the constitutional right to marry.”
Wait a second. Our nation’s culture has also considered homosexual relationships “inimical to the mutually supportive and healthy family relationships promoted by the constitutional right to marry,” has it not? The footnote continues (emphasis added):
“Although the historic disparagement of and discrimination against gay individuals and gay couples clearly is no longer constitutionally permissible, the state continues to have a strong and adequate justification for refusing to officially sanction polygamous or incestuous relationships because of their potentially detrimental effect on a sound family environment.”
So, a cousin marriage, for instance, or one between a man and three women is “potentially detrimental” to a family, but the “marriage” between two men is not? How did the court reach this conclusion? Anyone’s guess. How does the court justify upholding discrimination against people who wish to enter into incestuous and polygamous marriages?
Implied argument: Well, because we say so.
As the minority noted, the bans against incestuous and polygamous marriages are “ancient and deeprooted,” and so is the ban against homosexual marriage. Why did the California Supreme Court overturn this prohibition but uphold the prohibition against incestuous and polygamous marriages? If the court overturned “the equally deeprooted assumption that marriage is a union of partners of the opposite sex” with this decision, as the minority contends, it can just as easily and without sound reasoning extend the “right to marry” to incestuous and polygamous couples, can’t it? Of course it can!
Talk about a protected class! Not only may homosexuals enter into legally recognized and protected partnerships in California, the California Supreme Court just said that calling these unions anything other than marriages may be unconstitutional!
Additionally, if a court can conclude that sexual orientation is a classification on the level of skin color, can’t it conclude that consanguinity, same-sex or otherwise, also is a suspect classification on the level of skin color and subject to strict scrutiny? Of course it can! How does the California Supreme Court justify upholding discrimination against people who wish to enter into incestuous and polygamous marriages?
Implied argument: Well, because we say so.
I hope you see the point I’m trying to make. Slopes can be slippery stuff.
The minority contends – and I agree – that the four judges simply inserted their own value systems into this decision and expanded the “right to marry” to homosexuals, against the will of the people. Nothing to see here but the same old unconstitutionally decided case.
(On a biblical note to Christians, this decision won’t bring God’s wrath; it is God’s wrath. Listen to James White’s There is No Such Thing as Homosexual Marriage.)
{ 2 trackbacks }
{ 21 comments }
I really enjoyed this post..
&& as ridiculous as this sounds next thing ya know people are going to want to marry their pets or farm animals…maybe even their cars!
Sounds impossible but the way America is going (because we are denying God)crazier things will continue to happen.
Well, you certainly know how to just jump right back into the middle of things.
I just heard from a friend this morning that the Attorney General in California approved the Marriage Amendment Petition to be on the ballot in November.
AP report: AP Report
Although I don’t consider this post to be political per se, I guess it’s sort of jumping back in, eh?
Thanks for the tip, Randy!
You are welcome and this is socio/political … kind of a blend.
Glad to be of help.
Unfortunately for religious commentators opposed to personal liberty, marriage is a CIVIL right, not a religious one.
As for dubious claim that the decision goes against the will of the people, it is irrelevant. In free societies, tyranny of the majority is unjust. This is pretty pedestrian stuff acknowledged as early as the founding fathers.
If ‘God’s wrath’ brings some level of freedom and equality to consenting individuals, then I’ll have more of it please.
Unfortunately for religious commentators opposed to personal liberty, marriage is a CIVIL right, not a religious one.
Since when did marriage become a “civil right”? Surely you are not comparing this mythical “civil right to marry” to something like the right to vote! Does this mean a jilted bride (for example) has had her “civil rights” violated and the runaway groom can be prosecuted?
I suppose that it would be bad form to point out that our society throughout its history has placed legal limits upon marriage. We limit the age of the “consenting parties”, we allow only one spouse at a time, we make couples that want to divorce go through long (and costly) legal hearings, and one divorced partner can be forced to financially support the other. None of these issues were even remotely addressed by the California Supreme Court’s heavy-handed decision.
Decisions like this are a threat to civil liberties, since the majority of the judges in this case made their decision solely based upon the fact that they wanted gay/lesbian marriages enshrined into law and simply imposed their will on the people of California. This overheated talk of “tyranny of the majority” is overshadowed by something vastly worse - tyranny of the minority (four, to be exact). It that really better?
‘Does this mean a jilted bride (for example) has had her “civil rights” violated and the runaway groom can be prosecuted?’
Well, the inevitable court battle that will ensue after he decides to do this will take place in CIVIL courts. This is a moot point. Marriage may have religious connotations to you but it is perfectly possible to have a none religious marriage. It does not even have to take place in a Church or be recognised by any religious authority. Those days are long gone, thank God.
‘I suppose that it would be bad form to point out that our society throughout its history has placed legal limits upon marriage.’
The key word is CONSENT. For people drawing tiresome comparisons between pedophilia etc - children, animals et al are not ‘consenting parties.’ And for the record, polygamists are very rarely prosecuted in the US. It may as well be legal.
‘and simply imposed their will on the people of California.’
Nobody is imposing their will on anybody. YOU wish to impose your will to stop others doing something you perceive to be morally wrong. What is it to you or any citizen of California what two people wish to be seen as? This is a question I have never received an adequate answer to. There are undeniable benefits to the individuals wishing to get married and no drawbacks whatsoever for everybody else. Live and let live. It is that simple.
Zen : “As for dubious claim that the decision goes against the will of the people, it is irrelevant. In free societies, tyranny of the majority is unjust. This is pretty pedestrian stuff acknowledged as early as the founding fathers.”
Well, I agree, Zen, that tyranny of the majority is unjust. It also happens to be more just than tyranny of the minority. Our federal constitutional framework was based on the premise that without the approval of the majority, the entire system would be worthless (no social contract). If you look at the framework you will find that the majority does stand as the final check on government power. Again, because without that check, there would be a tyranny of the minority.
AFTER the tyranny of the majority is established, minority positions are given structural and procedural defense from majority tyranny. In no case was the court designed to be one of these defenses in the manner which you espouse, and it is SINGULARLY unsuited for the task in that manner.
The court was designed to uphold minority rights through:
1) Enforcing procedural adherance upon the other branches.
2) Enforcing constitutional separation of power upon the other branches in order to maintain a tension strong enough to generate the rule of law from which derives the metering of justice.
3) Decide precedence in cases of ambiguity of the law.
4) Decide if laws violate constitutional STRUCTURE.
The structural mechanisms deliver the minority protection. I’m no expert on California’s internal workings, so I won’t comment there. Instead, I will give an example at the federal level.
The 17th amendment changed how we elect senators. Prior to the 17th amendment, the STATE legislature was the BOSS of the senator. After the 17th amendment, big business and big unions became the boss of the senator. If you study why, you will understand structural minority protection.
Until then, you’re just talking out of your ***.
At least you recognize that it’s discrimination against Polygamists. Perhaps one of us will show up at the court house steps, and test that assumption.
Why so silent on Eldorado La Shawn?
By what standard do we define tyranny?
Note that no one during the Reformation, or the Enlightenment, nor philosophers during the time of the American Revolution, ever said or wrote that refusal to recognize same-sex unions as marriages constituted tyranny.
These decesions should be left up to the voters and not a bunch of unelected judges
Um, no.
Here’s how it starts. Marriage is between a man and a woman. If a man can marry one woman, why not three? The women aren’t married to each other, it’s three marriages taking place simultaneously. One man, one woman in each marriage, just so happens it’s the same man in all 3 marriages, so what’s the problem? This used to be fairly common, check your BIBLE for details.
Marriage is between a man and a woman. Well, why can’t Bob marry his sister Carol? She’s a woman, he’s a man, what’s the problem?
Marriage is between a man and a woman. Susan and her male dog Fido….
I’ll stop right there, you don’t need to prohibit gays to prohibit polygamy, incest and beastiality. It follows that letting gays doesn’t let everyone else in, either. The same reasons that prohibit polygamy, incest, and beastialty don’t disappear.
Slippery slope arguments are a logical fallacy designed to inspire fear and rally hatred, they are not good arguments, because they rest on the presumption that stopping points can’t exist or don’t exist, something we all know to be completely true. Aspirin is a drug, heroin is a drug, if one is legal, shouldn’t they both be? We should ban aspirin!! Wrong.
Finally, the legislature approved gay marriage bills in CA twice, the Governator vetoed them because he wanted to hear what the courts said. So now, you have all 3 branches(legislative, judicial, and executive) of the government in agreement: gays are people deserving of the same rights as their heterosexual counterparts. And it wasn’t the CA court that decided marriage is a fundamental right, read your history, that’s been established precedent since the whole interracial marriage bans ended (also by the courts, btw).
So many more important issues to worry about, yet we waste energy worrying about non issues like Gay marriage.
And Gay marriage is a non issue. It is a colossal waste of energy to fight about it.
I used to be opposed to gay legal marriage, until it sort of dawned on me that it had absolutely no bearing on my life or anyone else’s. All it does it allow someone to take care of someone they love (even if it’s too much) when needed. That’s fairly harmless, and if we’re going to ban it because it’s against God’s law there’s an awful lot more to ban — blasphemy coming immediately to mind.
Frankly, I don’t even see why people care. As explained above, children and animals cannot consent. Adults can. So, yes, this means that theoretically incestuous and polygamous relationships could be legalized. And so what? The latter are perfectly moral, from what little the Bible says on the matter, and the former are only wrong because it makes your dad look bad.
Ultimately, my reaction every time I see a new Christian crusade against homosexuality/pornography/Harry Potter/condoms is something along the lines of — “Wow, so judging by where you’re spending your energy and money, I’m guessing that all the children who are starving to death in Africa have been fed?”
The arguments against marriage equality fall very much into the category of “the emperor has no clothes.”
The problem with the “slippery slope” argument, which has been explained time and time again, is that gay people have absolutely no stake in the idea of legal recognition for incest or polygamy — people who wanted recognition would have to argue those cases on their OWN merits.
The problem here is that many people simply want to deny the reality that obvious to anyone who gets out of their comfort zone: it is a simple fact that gay people are gay people, and we will always exist. It’s kind of offensive actually, that it’s Christians who lead the fight against marriage equality, since many gay people are, in fact, deeply Christian people. The Christians who fight against this give so many conflicting explanations for their opposition — If a legislature passes it, they’re going against the Constitution; if it’s done judicially, then it’s going against the will of the legislature and the people, if the people vote for it, well, my heavens, you won’t hear the words “activist judge” anymore! The fact is that rights in this nation are not allocated based on a popularity contest. What’s funny, though, is that in California, the opposition falls back on the fact that Proposition 22 passed almost TEN YEARS AGO. Perhaps it’s a willful denial of reality that keeps people from realizing that public opinion is moving toward acceptance much faster than that! And it has nothing to do with any mythical “homosexual agenda” or “homosexual activists” or anything like that. The truth is much simpler: peoples’ opinions on the worth and humanity of gay people and our marriages (which are already marriages, just so you know) change every time a gay couple moves in next door, or they realize/find out that the woman they’ve been working next to for ten years is gay, or that the nice man who sits behind them in church who always comes alone and sings the hymns beautifully…or when their child comes out. People realize that, wow, all of this “chicken little” that’s been coming from certain segments of the Right has really been much ado about nothing. They realize that gay people don’t want to take anything AWAY from Christians; as I said, some of us ARE Christians!
One of the cardinal doctrines of Christianity is grace, and it’s something that God has been teaching me about lately, in wildly varying ways. On another day, I might have left a terse reply to this, but the lesson I’m learning is that we ALL need to have grace toward each other, and listen to each other; that, in the end, it’s really not about an “agenda,” it’s just about taking reality as we understand it in 2008, the reality that being gay is not an arbitrary choice, that we’re just who we are, and our dreams (especially among the younger generations) are pretty much the same as anyone else’s.
I would ask that we all try to exhibit grace toward each other. We can argue about scripture another day. I’ve got my arsenal of arguments, you’ve got yours. That’s fine. In the end, are we treating each other as human beings, or as talking points?
Happy Sunday.
“Ultimately, my reaction every time I see a new Christian crusade against homosexuality/pornography/Harry Potter/condoms is something along the lines of — ‘Wow, so judging by where you’re spending your energy and money, I’m guessing that all the children who are starving to death in Africa have been fed?’”
This couldn’t be more spot on. I would share this, as a reminder, to all of us, not in the spirit of using the Bible as a weapon, but to show us how ALL of us get our priorities out of whack. Even if you’re not a person of faith reading this, I find these words to be wise:
“Defend the cause of the weak and fatherless; maintain the rights of the poor and oppressed. Rescue the weak and needy; deliver them from the hand of the wicked.” Psalm 82:3-4
Consider:
Every 15 seconds a child becomes an orphan in Africa due to AIDS.
Each day, 5,760 children become orphans in Africa, bringing the grand total to over 2,100,000 children every year.
Every day 38,493 orphans “age out” of the system, meaning they’re thrown out into the world alone.
And we’re over here behind our cushy computers in our cushy houses arguing against people among us having the right to be recognized by the government for what…love? For love. For doing the same thing that millions of straight people do…falling in love, building a life, and not wanting to have to worry that, if tragedy befalls one of us, the other would be denied the right to sit at the hospital bedside…all these simple things that people take for granted.
We all get our priorities out of whack. The important thing is to realize it, and to do something about it.
I would simply make the point that Christian organizations have been and remain at the forefront of humanitarian efforts across the globe. Pro-gay marriage advocates have no basis to attack Christians as spending too much time “oppressing” them rather than attending to the world’s needy. The church around the world is heavily engaged in that very thing. So if you disagree with Christians as it regards their faith on this score, refrain from doing so with this line of attack that is simply aimed at discrediting the Christian point of view.
The man-woman criterion of marriage is not a purely religious basis for marriage. The social institution has been shown preference even in societies where the government has persecuted religious people. And by explicitly athiestic governments.
The sectarian arguments come from the pro-SSM side where there it is an article of faith that to disagree with them is itself an act of bigotry or hatred.
The essentials of marriage: 1) integration of the sexes (see the man-woman rule), 2) contingency for responsible procreation (see the marriage presumption of paternity), and 3) these combined as a coherent whole (see marriage - the social institution - which is recognized but not owned by the government).
Take the California Supreme Court’s definition of marriage and demonstrate how it is not open to related people and to plural marriages.
Some related can and do marry, but we draw the line against closely related people because of concerns about sex integration and responsible procreation. That is a both-sexed basis for the prohibition. But it dissolves in principle when the man-woman criterion is abolished.
How?
Well, the marriage presumption of paternity makes of marriage a sexual type union of husband and wife. But the presumption cannot apply to the all-male arrangement, nor the all-female arrangement, and gay identity has nothing to do with that. Sex differentiation is built-into the social institution.
That’s right. Marriages arises out of the two-sexed nature of humankind, the both-sexed nature of human generativity, and the both-sexed nature of human community. None of these three things are “gender-neutral” and neither is marriage. The fact is that the SSM advocates seek to gender-neturalized the relationship type that society calls marriage.
So if we take the sexual aspect out of marriage, by cutting out the basis for the marriage presumption of paternity, then, don’t expect people who are related to think of this “marital staus” as signifying a sexual union. Why should they or we? It would not be incestuous for closely related people to form a relationship based on love and mutual caretaking and commitment. There is no legal requirement that they engage in sexual behavior together. Not according to SSM argumentation, anyway.
We have drawn lines against plural marriage because thepractice tends toward an inferior form of sex integration — it can actually promote segregation in society where even a minority of men who hoard wives will deny marital opportunities for many more men. It also tends toward a very weak version of responsible procreation. That’s the practice and the experience with widespread polygamy.
So if we want equality of the sexes, we ought to maintain marriage as the unique social institution that requires gender completeness, rather than the exclusion of one or the other sex. For such exclusion denies sex equality within the relaitonship.
The California Supreme Court began with an article of faith, an axiomatic belief, that the one-sexed arrangement is a subset of the conjugal relationship type. But that’s a predrawn conclusion and is not based on the state constitution nor on the social consensus about marriage. It is a mere assertion and that is their starting place, not what marriage is, not what justice or the rule of law.
If you disagree with what I have described as the core of marriage, based on the definitive legal requirements I have cited, then, please explain what the essentials are under the 4-3 ruling of the California court.
What are the definitive legal requirements that directly reflect the indispensable features of the relationship type you have in mind when you use the word, marriage?
Remember the SSM rules that attack the link between procreation and marriage: 1) if it exists outside of marriage, it is not essential to marriage at law; if it lacks a legal requirement, it is not essential to marriage; if it has a weak requirement that is not absolutey enforced, then, that feature is not essential to marriage.
You will probably be left holding a hollow thing, with no core, and no justification for boundaries around it.
And you will probably be left pointing outside of marriage and abandoning the basis for a preferential status for marriage in the first place. You might even settle for the demotion of marriage to a merey protective status, or, in the case of “religion” and the man-woman criterion, a barey tolerated status.
Afterall, family formation is what the court declared is central to the status. Whether or not they are religious is irrelevant to SSMers — the polygamists, the incestuous people, they are not to be disparaged for their sexual behavior. Nope. And not for the attachment to an identity group. For that would make them second class citizens.
SSMers are asking society to wander into the quicksand. They demand special treatment for a subset of nonmarital arrangements and they do so based on nothing more than identity politics.
Just like the anti-miscegenists who pressed identity politics into marriage laws, they seek to use marriage for an unjust nonmarriage purpose.
“So if you disagree with Christians as it regards their faith on this score, refrain from doing so with this line of attack that is simply aimed at discrediting the Christian point of view.”
No, I don’t disagree with “Christians,” Aaron, I AM a Christian, and I disagree with a rapidly dwindling group of Christians whose numbers are dropping because they are merely aging out.
I tried to respond with grace, but some people apparently don’t respond.
The problem is incest can be spoken against if you’re looking at it from a Biblical perspective, Polygyny (the specific form of Polygamy practiced in scripture) cannot be spoken against. We’re on the wrong side of at least part of the issue.
You jest. Surely. Rick and BtT, I mean.
Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ says (in Mt. 19:4-9),
I do not speak of what the law recognises; this really should be left up to the people to persuade each other in the marketplace of ideas, rather than taken up by the judiciary.
But in the Christian context, it is imperative that the foundational teachings of Jesus be applied, well before any other teaching (including that of Paul, whose views on many issues are very strong… and very slanted). Especially since Jesus doesn’t refer to marriage often, just twice or thrice as recorded in the Bible.
And what does Jesus say?
1. God created us male and female, man and woman. This is by design; it is a feature, not a bug. Both sexes are necessary!
2. Because God created us male and female, we men are to leave our family, and create a new family by ‘cleaving unto’ our wives (one each!), and the two shall become one flesh - this is the fundamental definition of marriage!
3. As God has joined man and wife, no man - not even the man and wife in question! - may sunder this bond. Only for adultery is this permissible; otherwise, it is not to be.
So, if you profess to be a Christian, this is the standard text to be preaching from. And nowhere does Jesus permit man and man to marry, nor woman and woman. Further, nor does Jesus permit divorce on the basis of you suddenly finding out you’re homosexually inclined.
I will not tickle your ears with what you want to hear. My sexual preferences are not important (I have rather exotic, unorthodox ones, but I do not act on them). Hear what the Lord says! Hear what St John says, also, “If anyone does sin, we have an Advocate in Heaven, Jesus Christ the righteous, and He is the expiation of our sins.”
So, the Christian point of view is clear and irrefutable. If you say you are a Christian, and you follow Jesus’ footsteps and obey His command, then obey this one also!
But why is marriage important? When you have the poor, the needy, the hungry, the destitute, those without faith, the sick and the suffering, war orphans and widows… why concentrate on this one thing alone?
Well, consider that marriage is the VERY FOUNDATION OF OUR SOCIETY!!!
I hope this provides you a clear understanding of the Christian understanding of marriage and divorce. And BtT, just because you think this view is unpopular, or dying out, it does not mean it’s wrong.
Again, this is why a lot of evangelical and orthodox Christians are diametrically opposed to same-sex marriages. Our faith informs our principles, our thoughts, our principles, our values, our morals, our actions (or at least it should). Whenever the church and the state bump (as in the case of marriage, or employment, etc), the state usually wins out. Note that this is not true of whenever the mosque and state bump.
If you wish to refute my point, then by all means, please do so. But you must refer to the Word of God. Or, if you’re Catholic/Orthodox/High Church Anglican, the Early Fathers up to 250AD or so. But don’t expect me to hold my breath, OK? I’m over 230 lbs, I’ll suffocate
Comments on this entry are closed.