Posted by
Playful Walrus on Thursday, May 15, 2008 8:20:25 PM
At least, four judges did. Four judges – or rather, whoever the fourth one is – have decided to impose their will on the people of California and try to engage in social engineering by using legal force to counterfeit the basic building block of society.
My apologies, as a lifelong Californian, to the rest of the country.
Make no mistake about it – marriage built society. Our laws have traditionally recognized – not created – marriage. Instead of going the route the rest of us did – thousands of years of recorded human history and experience with marriage as a lasting sacrament – homosexual activists have decided to go the short route of judicial activism. So now a tiny fraction of society has come closer to removing the very meaning of marriage.
The uniting of both of the sexes is inherent in what make marriage marriage. A judge telling me that a man can marry a man is like telling me that it is possible for a circle to be square, or for the color blue to be warm to the touch. It makes me prone to disbelieve this judge. From a societal interest, marriage is about uniting the sexes, not about love, attraction, or validating relationships. Society doesn’t have the same interest in a couple of one sex as it does a couple that includes both sexes. So now the law will be devalued because calling two men together a marriage will be akin to calling water milk because it is also a potable liquid. The less the law aligns to reality the less credibility it has.
You do have a right to associate with whomever you want to, as long as they consent to associate with you. You can have ceremonies, you can cohabitate, you can make promises to each other, you can hug and kiss and stick things where they don't belong. Nobody can stop that. But state-licensed marriage is not a right, as true rights do not obligate others without their consent. It is something that has been voluntarily given by the people of California to a man and a woman because society benefits from marriage, as it is how we raise the next generation of soldiers, voters, taxpayers, workers, and leaders with both a mother and a father.
I promise you – it is only a matter of time before same-sex couples argue that it isn’t fair that both-sexes couples can produce children together without expensive adoptions and surrogacy arrangements, and thus that they have a right to have such costs paid for by taxpayers. It might sound ridiculous, and some may scoff, but that is exactly how people reacted when we used to say that the activists were going to try to change marriage.
As I have written here before, with no-fault divorce, the high divorce rate, the abandonment of legal punishments or civil consequences for adultery and breach of promise, the rise of promiscuity, shacking up, and illegitimacy – people no longer see marriage as a big deal. It has been kicked so many times while it is down, what’s the difference if we redefine it? We have separated sex and marriage, childbearing and marriage, childrearing and marriage, living together and marriage, commitment and marriage, and on it goes.
From Lisa Leff’s Associated Press article:
Jeanie Rizzo, one of the plaintiffs, called Pali Cooper, her partner of 19 years, and asked, "Pali, will you marry me?"
This makes as much sense as a conscientious objector claiming to be a military veteran of war. A woman can’t marry a woman, and a man can’t marry a man.
"This is a very historic day. This is just such freedom for us," Rizzo said. "This is a message that says all of us are entitled to human dignity."
Untrue. This is not about human dignity. It is about tearing marriage further down. You had all of the freedom a straight person had before this ruling.
The city of San Francisco, two dozen gay and lesbian couples and gay rights groups sued in March 2004 after the court halted the monthlong [“]wedding[“] march that took place when Mayor Gavin Newsom opened the doors of City Hall to same-sex [“]marriages[“].
Yes, a man who thinks so little of marriage that he was carrying on an affair with his assistant’s wife.
"Today the California Supreme Court took a giant leap to ensure that everybody — not just in the state of California, but throughout the country — will have equal treatment under the law," said City Attorney Dennis Herrera, who argued the case for San Francisco.
Everyone already had equal treatment. Yes, couples were treated differently. That is because they are different. There are business designations in the law that I can't apply to myself if I don't have that kind of business.
California already offers same-sex couples who register as domestic partners the same legal rights and responsibilities as married spouses, including the right to divorce and to sue for child support.
But, "Our state now recognizes that an individual's capacity to establish a loving and long-term committed relationship with another person and responsibly to care for and raise children does not depend upon the individual's sexual orientation," Chief Justice Ron George wrote for the court's majority, which also included Justices Joyce Kennard, Kathryn Werdegar and Carlos Moreno.
None of that has anything to do with this. It is that two men or two women is not the same thing as a man and a woman. It isn’t. If it was the same thing, then nobody would be a homosexual and nobody would be straight - because there would be no difference.
In a dissenting opinion, Justice Marvin Baxter agreed with many arguments of the majority but said the court overstepped its authority. Changes to marriage laws should be decided by the voters, Baxter wrote. Justices Ming Chin and Carol Corrigan also dissented.
But all it took was one person to impose a change on the rest of us.
The conservative Alliance Defense Fund says it plans to ask the justices for a stay of their decision until after the fall election, said Glen Lavey, senior counsel for the group.
Yeah, good luck with that.
From Jim Christie’s article:
A dissenting opinion by Judge Marvin Baxter and joined by Judge Ming Chin said a narrow majority of the court had carved a constitutional right out of existing equal-protection laws, overstepping legislative powers in what amounted to "legal jujitsu." A third justice dissented on different grounds.
"It simply does not have the right to erase, then recast, the age-old definition of marriage, as virtually all societies have understood it, in order to satisfy its own contemporary notions of equality and justice," Baxter wrote.
At least someone on that bench has some sense.
Maura Dolan, Los Angeles Times staff writer, reports:
Today’s ruling by the Republican-dominated court affects more than 100,000 same-sex couples in the state, about a quarter of whom have children, according to U.S. census figures.
They certainly didn’t make those children together – not with outside help.
It came after high courts in New York, Washington and New Jersey refused to extend marriage rights to gay couples.
They probably refused to extend “square rights” to circles, too, and veterans' benefits to nonveterans, and won't pay for hysterectomies for men, those New York bigots!
Before today, only Massachusetts' top court has ruled in favor of permitting gays to wed.
This is such sloppy language. Gays has the same freedom to wed as anyone else. They just didn’t want to use that freedom. That someone does not want to exercise a freedom does not mean that something is wrong with that freedom and it must be changed for everyone.
Paul Drugan, a spokesman for the Los Angeles County Registrar-Recorder, said the county was not immediately granting same-sex [“]marriage[“] licenses, noting that the court's decision would take effect in 30 days.
I’ll have to go back and check to see what my marriage license says. It will be so sad if “bride” and “groom” will have to be removed from the license.
Holding up a sign that says, "Life feels different when you're married," Ellen Pontac said she was beyond words.
"Oh, wow," she said. "It felt so good when we got married in San Francisco. This feels better."
“Feelings… nothing more than feelings.” Feelings make for bad law. This is all about how someone feels.
She hugged her partner Shelly Bailes. "The best day of my life was when I met Ellen," Bailes said. "This was as good as that."
Why? Because ONE PERSON agrees with you? The people of the state of California, who are supposed to be the ones issuing marriage licenses, do not, or at least have not yet. You are happy because one person is forcing the rest of us to do something with which we disagree – something that makes a mockery of something we hold dear.
A few feet away, Kate Kendell, executive director of National Center for Lesbian Rights, was mobbed by reporters and well-wishers.
"As of today, the right to marry is now guaranteed to anyone," she said.
Really? Anyone? Not so. How about people who haven’t found a partner? They can’t get a marriage license. Nor can close family members, or someone who is already married. Oh, the bigotry of it all! A right is a right after all, no matter how small the lobby.
"All I know is that we won."
Society loses. The California electorate loses. You are part of both of those categories, no? Ah, but who cares about that as long as you feel affirmed in your choice of partners?
At his home in Toluca Lake, Jim Smith a parent and part of a same-sex relationship, also rejoiced. "I'm ecstatic," said Smith, 40, chief technology officer for an online advertising agency. "I think this is the beginning of the end of ostracism, bullying, and all the things that used to make people feel less human than others."
Not really. If you feel like those things were prevalent before, they’re not going away just because of a court ruling.
The plan by San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom, City Atty. Dennis Herrera and gay rights lawyers to challenge state marriage laws by [“]wedding[‘] same-sex couples was carefully considered.
City officials chose the first couples to wed, hoping their long unions and sympathetic stories would put a face on same-sex marriage that courts would find difficult to reject. The city also decided to begin the weddings on a day when courts were closed to deprive opponents of quick legal intervention.
Live by the sword, die by the sword. The ends to not always justify the means. You could have set a precedent and example that can be used by others to do something you don’t like. Will you like it if a handful of conservatives get a judge to force a change on your life, so we'll feel better?
Here some quotes in the Los Angeles Times:
Karen Bass (D-Los Angeles), California Assembly speaker:
"It is a true testament to advancing equality and to recognizing the right of all Californians to build a future with the person they love.”
Uh, they didn’t have a right to do that before? Someone tell Goldie Hawn and Kurt Russell.
Ina Piette, a 76-year-old resident of Laguna Beach:
"It doesn't bother me. . . . We try to control people's lives too much. How would this hurt other people? I don't see it."
It is controlling for a judge to tell me that I must issue a marriage license when there is a bride or groom missing. Counterfeiting devalues the real thing. This will make it easier to deprive children of a mother or a father. I don't want more people growing up without a mother or father, because I'll have to interact with them and they will be at a disadvantage.
Antonio Villaraigosa, Los Angeles mayor [and adulterer]
"It's been a long journey to reach this historic day," he said, standing in the courtyard of L.A.'s Gay and Lesbian Community Center. "This is about people and the right for people to love who they want."
They couldn’t love who they wanted before? Such sloppy thinking. So deceptive. To listen to the likes of this, you'd have thought that none of these people have loved each other before today, or that they were thrown in jail for doing so.
Richard Mark Alfaro, a resident of Los Angeles, 55, and an HIV-positive man:
"I'm at a point where I don't think I'll ever get married, who will want me the way I am?"
But he quickly added, "The younger generation of gays needs it before they get too messed up like some of us. This will offer them stability in their relationships finally to the point of what's perceived as 'normal.' "
Yeah, because nobody who is married ever got HIV, right? I predict that this will not really improve things for gay people – it will worsen things for “marriage”, as “married” people, as a group, will see an increase in domestic violence and substance abuse and infidelity and mental and physical illnesses because a population that has a higher rate of those things will be included.
Jennifer Chrisler, Executive director, Family Equality Council
"With this historic and fair-minded ruling, the California Supreme Court has taken a tremendous step in moving equality forward for California families.”
In other words, they still have more changes they want to force on the rest of us. Nothing will ever be enough for them.
“Though we recognize that it does not take a marriage to make a family, we understand that thousands of same-sex couples and their families in California and beyond desire to marry and are in critical need of the legal protections that marriage affords."
In other words, they don’t really value marriage, except as a way to get things like entitlements. Either marriage makes a family or it doesn’t. You can’t have it both ways as in “Now we can finally be a family" and "We already are a family."
Assemblyman Lloyd Levine (D-Van Nuys), author of California's same-sex [“]marriage[“] bills:
"I am absolutely elated by the California Supreme Court's decision. We live in 2008 and there is no place for discrimination in any way, shape or form.”
What an incredibly stupid statement. We all use discrimination all of the time – otherwise we sit there like blobs doing nothing. What matters is the basis for discrimination. There is no reason to believe that, say, someone would be a better or worse accountant based on the color of their skin, so we should not discriminate against someone based on skin color when hiring an accountant.
"All people in California have equal rights under the law.”
You mean they didn’t before and they now do? Is that so? Then I never want to hear you saying otherwise in the future about anything else.
“I look forward to the day when all people can marry the person they love.”
Another incredibly stupid statement, because taken at face value, it can be applied to polygamy and close family members marrying each other.
Elisa Odabashian, resident of Burlingame, Calif.
"For more than 21 years, Ash and I have wanted to marry. Our kids, Gavin [17] and Baylor [14], yearn for their parents to be married.”
You intentionally put children into a situation where they wouldn’t have a father? That’s very selfish of you.
”Today, we have been told that we will get that basic human right to love and to have society acknowledge and honor our love and our family.”
You already had the right to love. You didn’t love until today? Society doesn’t honor your relationship – a judge does.
How many of the couples will split up because one of them doesn’t really want to marry, at least without a pre-nup? How many gay men and women are already being taken to the cleaners by their less-affluent exes via the domestic partnership law? You have to take the obligations and restrictions with the privileges, folks!