E-mail
Print
RSS
G-bookmarks
Live
TechnoratiFor the past two weeks, gay “marriage” has been the talk of the town – mostly as a result of the California Supreme Court’s infamous May 15 ruling, which has set the stage for homosexuals to tie the knot in June.
In a single day, four judges did that which they acknowledged they should not do – they redefined marriage because they believe marriage should be redefined.
And “We the People of the United States” – the centerpiece of the very Constitution that they have been called to uphold – are the ones that they have ignored.
“[W]e cannot find that retention of the traditional definition of marriage constitutes a compelling state interest,” Chief Justice Ron George wrote in the majority opinion. “Accordingly, we conclude that to the extent the current California statutory provisions limit marriage to opposite-sex couples, these statutes are unconstitutional.”
It should be absolutely obvious that, in making its decision, the California Supreme Court overstepped its authority. Even those on the bench have acknowledged this, including Justice Carol Corrigan, who said the majority “improperly infringes on the prerogative of the voters by overriding their decision.”
“[T]hat change is for the people to adopt, not for judges to dictate,” she wrote in a separate opinion.
Justice Marvin Baxter similarly noted how the majority, in reaching its decision, “violates the separation of powers, and thereby commits profound error.”
“California statutes already recognize same-sex unions and grant them all the substantive legal rights this state can bestow,” he wrote in a separate opinion. “If there is to be a further sea change in the social and legal understanding of marriage itself, that evolution should occur by similar democratic means. The majority forecloses this ordinary democratic process, and, in doing so, oversteps its authority.”
The only thing more regrettable than the conclusion of four activist judges is the process through which they came to it.
First, as Justice Baxter noted, was their improper reference to the race cases such as Perez v. Sharp — which found that California’s statutory provisions prohibiting interracial marriages were inconsistent with the fundamental constitutional right to marry.
“The civil rights cases banning racial discrimination were based on duly enacted amendments to the United States Constitution, proposed by Congress and ratified by the people through the states. To our nation’s great shame, many individuals and governmental entities obdurately refused to follow these constitutional imperatives for nearly a century. By overturning Jim Crow and other segregation laws, the courts properly and courageously held the people accountable to their own constitutional mandates. Here the situation is quite different,” Baxter noted.
Another egregious error committed by the majority was its assertion that retaining the traditional definition of marriage and affording same-sex couples only a separate and differently named family relationship WILL impose “appreciable harm” on same-sex couples and their children. Ignored, however, was the equally, if not greater, potential harm that such recognition will do to society as a whole. What makes the harm that homosexuals claim to experience greater than the harm that traditional family advocates claim children have and may suffer from a pro-gay culture that is more centered on sex than on strengthening the basic building block of society – the family? Continue »
tpique1 »
Agree: 
Disagree: 
