Print this story |
E-mail story |
This story has 3 comments Add your own |
iPod friendly | Bookmark this
What is this?
California go against the will of the people
Published Wednesday, June 25, 2008
Perhaps it had to happen, given the temper of the times. But the California Supreme Court’s 4-3 ruling last month saying the constitution of the nation’s most populous state gives homosexual couples a previously invisible right to marry nevertheless is a striking instance of how arrogant unelected judges can impose an anti-child view of marriage on society. Marriage, in this understanding, isn’t about children. Its fundamental purpose is to gratify two adults who enter into a contractual union in order to please themselves. Though some homosexual couples raise children through adoption or other means, this is the exception and not the rule. The same-sex relationship is intrinsically non-procreative in itself.
The California bishops issued a statement deploring the May 15 ruling. The decision of the State Supreme Court, they said, “opens the door for policymakers to deconstruct traditional marriage and create another institution in its place.” Five years ago we saw this happen in Massachusetts thanks to that state’s highest court.
Looked at in its socio-political dimension, the most alarming thing about legalizing homosexual marriage is precisely this — that the state in this manner bestows its blessing on the proposition that marriage is a one-to-one arrangement entered into by two adults of the same or different sexes for what they perceive as their private benefit. This is the logical extension of our narcissistic and self-absorbed culture. Children, if any, are beside the point of marriage. If two adult partners do choose to make room for them, it’s only to make them feel good.
But the rational for homosexual marriage doesn’t stop there. A further assumption arising from totalitarian liberalism, is that marriage is a creature of the state, subject to being defined however Big Brother chooses. Hence we see the consensus of ordinary people expressed by democratic means is irrelevant. It matters little to the California Supreme Court that 61 percent of the voters there in 2000 backed a ballot initiative defining marriage as a union between one man and one woman. Just four unelected judges were needed to brush aside the will of the people and send the message, “Marriage is what we say it is.” In other words, marriage belongs to “Caeser” and not to God.
The decision in California has set the stage for a crucial showdown in November. State constitutional amendments defining marriage in heterosexual terms will be on the ballot in California, Florida and perhaps in Arizona. Twenty-seven states already have such language in their constitutions. Of the two presidential candidates for this November’s election, only Sen. John McCain supports the idea of leaving the decision to amend the constitutions to each state.
Part of the case for legalizing homosexual marriage is that it’s no threat to anybody or anything else. But it is. The legal acceptance of same-sex marriage legitimates the anti-child, anti-procreation notion of marriage that is already disturbingly widespread today. Most importantly, do courts have the right to undermine what God has set in place as the basic building block of stable societies? Marriage was given by and defined by God and “Caesar” has no right or authority to undermine it.
Scott Bute
Alden
WOULD YOU LIKE TO SHARE THIS STORY?
Comments
Posted by PolishBear (anonymous) on June 25, 2008 at 11:42 a.m. (Suggest removal)
It is not the courts' job to uphold the precise will of the majority of the people. That's what elections are for. The job of the courts is to uphold the Constitution, regardless of whether the necessary decisions fall in line with the will of the majority. It is up to the judges to determine, without bias from the rest of the population, what constitutes equality under the law, or equal protection. It seems more than obvious to me that to exclude Gays from the institution of marriage is a clear violation of any notion of "equality," and I have yet to see anyone dispute that on a rational level. Therefore, it is not "activism" on the part of judges to declare that Gay and Straight couples should be treated equally under the law, rather it is an example of judges performing their rightful duty.
To those people out there who still suggest that social justice must be reached through the legislative process, rather than through the courts, I would point to the history of racial injustice in this country. While I could choose any number of cases to make my point, I'll start with the most obvious - Brown v Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas. As everyone knows, this is the ruling that essentially reversed the Plessy v Ferguson "separate but equal" doctrine. Without the decision of the court in Brown v Board, it is impossible to say when the schools of America would have begun to integrate, but I believe it is safe to say it would have been much later. At the time, the Brown v Board decision was just as unpopular with certain segments of the population as a decision today would be that grants Gay couples equal marriage rights. Looking back, I think we can all agree that the unpopularity of the decision did not make it wrong.
When you're dealing with bigotry, a force which runs deeper than many would like to admit, it is often impossible to wait for the "legislative process" to do its work. There is no telling how long it will take a majority of the population to decide, on its own, that it is time to stop discriminating based on sexual orientation. I therefore believe that it is not only the right, but the obligation of the courts to step in and ensure that all citizens are able to enjoy the same rights under the law, as the spirit of the Constitution provides.
Posted by dewdroppedin (anonymous) on June 25, 2008 at 3:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Scott,
The latest polls in California show a majority of people support gay marriage, so if you are interested in what the majority wants then you had better shut up.
You say that marriage was not intended to be for the “adults who enter into a contractual union in order to please themselves.” Maybe that is what wrong with your life.
In the fall California will have a ballot measure, the purpose of which is to change the constitution and instill in it the same discrimination that was in the US constitution concerning slavery. All other parts of the constitution guarantee peoples rights and the idea of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, but people just like you want to find a group of people and attack them and yes, hate them. Most disgusting of all you have to say God told you to do it. You use God because if anyone else says to do it you can't back up your position, it is indefensible, you are WRONG.
As far as children go, a lot of gay couples find a way to have a child, either one genetically related or one that is not, are you going to OK marriage for these people and decide to take it away from childless couples?
Turns out a lot of girls in Minnesota figure out, some too late, that marriage is not necessary for having a child. Is there anything special you want to do them, to the fathers? Seems this group of people is not respecting marriage either.
Bible bases of marriage? Seems like a lot of prominent characters in the Bible had more than one wife, are you saying that monogamy is short sighted and we should allow polygamy? Or, how about live in concubines? Should that be OK?
As far as religion and marriage, if your church wants to discriminate on who it will allow to marry, go ahead, you have freedom of religion, you can call those people anything you want. But, the state, whether it is one of the individual states or the United States, operates on the rule of law and by the constitution. These things are guided by the ideas of fair play and decency, and yes public opinion. The public has come around to the idea that people like you are wrong and the that denying people of the right to marriage based on race was wrong (something you might want to keep are your short list of things to do in those states that pass a constitutional amendment on gay marriage) and the same thing goes for gay couples and gay marriage.
Posted by 2gr8danes (Lori Meyer) on July 1, 2008 at 3:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)
WOW! That's all I can say.....WOW!
Post a comment (Terms of Use Policy)
The Tribune encourages healthy, respectful dialogue in the spirit of community enlightenment. It's OK to disagree, but be courteous and civil. Name-calling, vulgarity and claims of criminality are subject to removal.
(Requires free registration.)