When the Judge Becomes a Tyrant.
California has taken yet another step towards socailistic bliss denial. Being one of the more influential states in the USA (lets face it, Hollywood and San Francisco kind of have a hold of culture by the crotch), I guess it was only a matter of time before something like this happened… but that doesn’t make it any less disturbing. On the one hand, the judges have interpretation of the law and mediation between groups of people at the center of their job description… on the other, they also don’t have any responsibility to be accountable to anyone.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080515/ap_on_re_us/gay_marriage
There are a couple of things I want to point out with this story. First is the fact that the decision was made 4-3. Secondly, this decision overturned a voter approved ban on same-sex marriage. Third is the way the journalist paints the picture of the religious protesters that are trying to get a constitutional ammendment placed on the ballot in November.
In complete disregard for the will of the voters (the law that was overturned was approved by 61% of the electorate in 2000… a percentage more than enough to end a philibuster in the senate) the California supreme court struck down both Proposition 22 (the 2000 law) and the original definition of marriage passed in 1978. You want to talk about not respecting democratic process? The (unelected) Supreme Court just made legislation for the state of California based on a 4-3 decision! This is the kind of “leadership” that military juntas and the “politburo”s of the world are built on.
I am firmly convinced that this fight is more about people attempting to stick their thumb in God’s eye and not about their rights. Why? Because California already gave equal priveledges and rights to gay couples in “domestic partnerships” that they did to people in marriages (including divorce, adoption, all of it), the only difference being that there wasn’t any kind of covenant to be together until death made before God. If you already have all the rights and priveledges, why on earth would you still need to get the state to recognize it as a “marriage”? At that point, it is either a pointless fight (no pun intended) or it is just trying to prove to those religious nut jobs that you are more powerful than their cutesy little traditions or morality. Either way, I’m nervous about the nefarious direction the multifarious judiciaries are heading.
Adam
The Beat Down 
Makes me cry…
Advice to the ACLU: Strike while the iron is hot!
(1) Why not marriage between more or less than two people – people should be able to declare a privileged “married” relationship with as many people as they want – no descrimination against or for certain numerals.
(2) Why not marriage between adults and their own children? Sure the child is too young to decide, but their guardian can decide for them in their best interest. No descrimination against age.
(3) Why not marriage between any person and their favored loving pet? Species descrimination? Pets have rights, don’t they?
I’m thinking if four judges out of seven can’t find a rationale to draw a distinction between gay and straight marriage, they’re primed to accept all sorts of liberal ideals. Hey ACLU, why not go for the gold?
*sheesh*
I just heard uber-lib congressdoof Pete Stark rant on the radio about this decision:
He was effusive in praise of the court.
He deplored that right wing kooks and Christians would try to overturn the court decision by ballot initiative.
He embraced the concept of polygamy.
I guess I thought I was over-the-top joking in my last reply. I was so wrong.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2017019/posts
As I said, this is more about sticking your thumb in God’s eye than it is about the “right” to do something. Unfortunately, democracy takes a back seat to political agendas… and if you needed any more convincing that the DNC is a mere two steps removed from socialism, this should be enough to push you over the edge.
How do you feel about the fact that the governor of CA twice vetoed a law legalizing same-sex marriage?
Is that not also a “tyrannical” usurpation of democracy?
That question was rhetorical. See, all of this demonstrates that democracy is working just fine. If “the people” don’t like the CA decision and think the issue is important enough to devote their energy to, they can pass a constitutional amendment banning gay couples from marriage.
As for this question,
“If you already have all the rights and priveledges, why on earth would you still need to get the state to recognize it as a ‘marriage’?”
Rather than this being about sticking one’s thumb in God’s eye, it has more to do with the fact that referring to same-sex families as “domestic partnerships” turns gay and lesbian Americans into second-class citizens. It is demeaning and it sends the message that our families are not legitimate, real, or worthy of respect. Even if you don’t agree that my family is any of these things, you should at least be able to acknowledge that it’s something worth fighting for and that we’re not just fighting for it with some evil master plan to smite God.
Fannie, I am so sorry.
I have known homosexual people, and have several in my extended family. Every one of them turned the hurt, anger, and bitterness produced by horrible wrongs done them into a lifestyle where perversion is one of the qualifications for acceptance. Society does no one like that a favor by saying “OK, your lifestyle choice is legitmate, we’ll leave you in pain with your perversion and hope that you don’t just pass it on to too many children in your charge.” What is needed is a loving outreach from people of faith who can minister healing and love in the name of Jesus.
How does one learn a sexual attraction for the same gender? Until this generation in America, anyway, it was probably not from parents. Pornography has grown increasingly perverse and even regulated broadcast media glorifies the worst excesses of people violating themselves in pursuit of a transient sensory experience. The enemy will use such experiences against us and teach us through sly whispers that it won’t really defile us, and then, we’re too defiled for redemption, beyond hope. People of faith ministering deliverance and redemption are the answer here, not confirmation of lies from hell that say your worth is gone and you might as well while you still can.
A homosexual “family” may, through legal or medical assistance, be able to produce or acquire children, but those children will never have a mom and a dad. Their own sexuality will be assaulted and they will be wounded, at least exposed in their most vulnerable moments to the wounds or spiritual oppressions that afflict the “parents”. What answer do people of faith have for children in the charge of a homosexual couple/group? Only Jesus, just like all of us.
I’m not worried about anyone’s assault on God – I’m worried that your pain and heartache and anger won’t ever go away without the heartfelt apology of those who wronged you, and that the burden of your experience cannot be lifted by any human companion – only Jesus. I worry that your passionate struggle for a hollow recognition under law won’t give you relief, only another transient sensory experience. When you have it, what have you really gained?
My heart goes out to you, and I’ll be praying that you encounter the God that says “you’re worth everything to me”.
Brian,
I appreciate your sincere response.
At the same time, I wonder where you have gotten the idea that all gay people are gay because some “horrible wrong” happened to us. That may be true of some people, but it is not true of me nor is it true of most gay people that I know. I had a rather happy and “normal” childhood and now am a law-abiding, sane, and happy adult. Nor am I particularly pained or angry, at least no more so than any other human being dealing with the ins and outs of everyday life.
I share some of your concerns regarding pornography but don’t see how it’s relevant. Rather than being a mere “transient sensory experience,” the love I have of my partner is long-lasting, fulfilling, and pretty similar to the love that many healthy and happy married couples share. Whatever your conception of the “gay lifestyle” is, those of us seeking the rights of marriage are not the ones having fleeting promiscuous encounters in bathrooms that make all the headlines.
My turn… I really don’t care if people are homosexuals or not. God cares (evidenced by Romans 1 and a plethora of passages in the Old Testament), but I don’t. If someone is a homosexual, they are in need of Jesus as much as the heterosexual atheist down the street. Now to the issues being raised…
The governor of California vetoed the laws accepting gay marriage on the grounds of the ’78 court ruling that marriage was between a man and a woman… not merely personal vendettas. So the laws were rejected because it violated the court’s interpretation of the law as it stood. In 2000, 61% of the electorate upheld that decision by passing a voter-initiated law that marriage is between one man and one woman. That is the desecration of democracy I am referrencing. Four unelected judges struck down a decision that had been rendered by more than half of the voting public in California. The Governor, however, was elected by the voters.
Secondly, I have no idea why “domestic partnership” would make someone a “second class citizen”… particularly when the idea of marriage in this country is based on the judeo-christian view of marriage being a union of one man and one woman. If you don’t fit that description, then it isn’t a marriage in our culture. Also to be considered is that traditional marriages were performed in churches… meaning it is more a religious right than it is a legal one to begin with. With that in view, it makes sense that churches who reject the homosexual lifestyle would also refuse to “marry” homosexual couples.
Thirdly, there really is no reason to fight for the label of “married” when you already have all the government afforded perks of being married. Because the idea of marriage has the connotation of making a promise of being together till the end, it astounds me that so many people would be fighting for the right to make a promise that half of them will break. I don’t view marriage as a matter of respect or disrespect… it is more a fact of life.
Fourth, I know that many homosexual people have an incredibly deep love for each other. Some share a bond that many heterosexual couples would envy. However, this is little more than exemplary of the kind of bond that humans are designed to share with another (singular) human being, and not necessarily a discerning mark of the “legitimacy” of the lifestyle. To also mention the alarming rate of promiscuity among heterosexual people is not just a cop out… it is an irresponsibly bad argument. Considering that we are arguing morality, and conservative scholarship views homosexuality as sin to begin with, it is inherently pointless to say that it is any less “wrong” than promiscuity.
Fifth… as someone who has battled with pronography in the past, I can tell you that it is getting worse. I can also say that it is a wide gate to a dark road of destruction and immorality… whether it be heterosexual or homosexual. Because it is a gateway, it is very relevant to this conversation- provided it stays in the proper context of the gateway to all kinds of sexual perversion.
Lastly, I am going to referrence a friend of mine… “I don’t have to respect your beliefs if I know they are going to lead you to hell. In fact, it would be the height of unloving to do so.” I know several homosexual people, and I openly disagree with their lifestyle… awesome individuals that they are, I cannot and will not endorse their life choices in this arena. Not just because I am heterosexual, but because I simply am not able for the sake of my conscience.
As I said, in California homosexual couples were afforded all the rights of married couples including adoption, divorce, and tax credits… so this particular fight was not about seeking rights. So what was it about then? Seeking an endorsement of an authority figure to soothe the conscience? Showing the religious whackos just how jacked up they are? We should be able to make worthless promises like married couples?
The point of this post is not specifically arguing about the merit (or lack thereof) of homosexual rights, the social war on religion, or even if the sky is blue. My point in all of this is that the unelected Supreme Court of California tossed out a law that well more than half of the electorate approved. Apparently those four individuals have louder voices than 1,000,000+ that voted.
You said,
“My point in all of this is that the unelected Supreme Court of California tossed out a law that well more than half of the electorate approved. Apparently those four individuals have louder voices than 1,000,000+ that voted.”
Yes, that does seem to be the point of your post. Even though in your previous comment you raised a host of other issues with which I strongly disagree, I will restrict my comment to the main point of your post.
First off, I wonder if you have read the decision? If you start at page 11, you will read the court’s articulation as to why “domestic partnerships” make gay people second-class citizens. I urge you to seek to understand the other side, even if you don’t agree with it.
Further, while castigating judges as “tyrannical,” your argument as to why it’s not hypocritical to ignore the governor’s veto of the pro-same-sex marriage law, ironically, relies on the decisions of judges:
“The governor of California vetoed the laws accepting gay marriage on the grounds of the ‘78 court ruling that marriage was between a man and a woman.”
In other words, it was okay for the governor to veto this law because a court said that marriage was between a man and a woman. Meanwhile, when a court decided that marriage can between two men or two women that’s “tyrannical”?
Funny.
When you say that “four individual have louder voices than 1,000,000+ that voted,” I understand your concern. But at the same time, all your recitation of the numbers who voted for the proposition tells me is: neat, 1,000,000 people voted for an unjust law. That, of course, brings me to the most important part of all this. Our democracy is based on the idea of separation of powers whereby each branch of government has checks and balances over the others. An independent judiciary is necessary to prevent a (tyranny of the) majority from discriminating against minority groups.
You seem to think that democracy has been usurped here. It hasn’t. You do remember that “the people” can choose to pass a constitutional amendment that overturns the decision of this court, right?
It’s all part of the democratic process. So, rather than exaggerating about how this is all leading socialism, let’s all remember what democracy really is and how it works.
Yes, I have read the decision. No, it doesn’t change my opinion of it. The fact that I as a white person can’t get a scholarship from the UNCF does not make me less deserving of a college education, less of an american, or less of a scholar. Yet for some reason having a “domestic partnership” does?
You noticed my argument for the governor’s veto… good. However, you seem to have glossed over the part where I also mentioned that he was elected by the voters, while the supreme court was not. So no, the governor’s vetos are not the ursupation of democracy, but fully within his rights as the elected official. However, the court is unelected and trounced the voices of the majority of the people they claim to serve… that is in fact a black mark against democracy. Here is the solution… if you don’t like the governor, don’t vote for him and somebody else will get elected. If you don’t like the Supreme Court’s decision, you get the shaft because they are in power as long as they choose.
You mentioned the seperation of powers… last I checked, that was to make sure the various branches of government didn’t over-step their constitutional bounds, not to prohibit democratic legislation. Yes, the people can initiate a proposal for the ammending of the state constitution… so? That doesn’t change the fact that the court already overturned a majority decision by the electorate.
So no, this is not part of the democratic process. Due to seperation of powers, the judicial is unelected at the highest levels, with the intention being to provide a uniform interpretation of the constitution that sets the ground rules for new legislation. However, the court changed their 1978 ruling to throw out Proposition 22. That is not part of the democratic process.
Just because you don’t like a court’s opinion doesn’t make it undemocratic. Judges are unelected so they won’t have to fear being voted out of office for making unpopular decisions that uphold the constitution. Legislation is but one part of democracy, you know. Another feature is an independent judiciary that ensures that legislators do not overstep their bounds by passing unconstitutional laws.
One misconception I want to clear up in fairness: the California Supreme Court justices are not “unelected”. They are appointed by the governor, yes, but serve limited terms and must be confirmed by voters. All four of the judges in the majority on this ruling were confirmed — and all by margins larger than the 61% who voted in 2000 to bar same-sex marriage, incidentally.
In this sense, the California judiciary is as much a part of the democratic process as the California legislature.
The Legal Argument:
Many have been upset by the recent California State Supreme Court’s reversal of Proposition 22 because, they claim, it over-ruled the “will of the people.” The fact is, the supreme will of the people is the state constitution, and any lower law in violation of that constitution is null and void. That is the basis on which this ruling took place. The highest will of the people was upheld, the constitution.
In 1948 the California State Supreme Court seemed to rule against the will of the people. There was a long standing law in the state that an overwhelming number of Californians supported, anti-miscegenation. The law stated that a Caucasian could not legally marry a Negro. The law was overturned by the State Supreme Court. 94% of the voters of the state did not support the court in this decision. We look back on that ruling today as fair and just. But in 1948 the voters thought that their will was being over-ruled by a liberal court. Thank goodness for courts that often see beyond the peoples’ prejudices and rule against the majority! How else can we have liberty for all?
The Religious Argument:
When Christ walked the earth he gave us a Christian Constitution. It only had three articles and included only 70 words. But these words have become the hallmark of what it means to be a Christian. When anyone speaks of the teachings of Jesus, these are at the center.
Article 1 – And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment. (Mark 12:30)
Article 2 – And the second is like, namely this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these. (Mark 12:31)
Article 3 – And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise. (Luke 6:31)
Are we doing unto others as we would have them do unto us if we forbid them the same rights we have in legally marrying someone they love? Are we loving our neighbors if we deny them the same blessings of marriage that we have? Do we love God if we deny some of his children rights that the rest of us have. Are we only Christians when Jesus’ teachings agree with our prejudices?
Couldn’t resist posting another comment to this thread. There’s an awful lot of conversation about the electorate expressing their will. One thing that hasn’t been taken into account is how short-sighted (and in some cases, downright dumb) the electorate is. I have a blog about this, with facts and figures from recent polls and studies, at http://kcwgallery.wordpress.com/2008/09/23/theyre-counting-on-us-to-be-stupid-by-kc-wilkerson-wwwkcwgallerycom/.
I, for one, am grateful for a judiciary that has long-term vision and can move forward with rulings that protect all of the citizens of the state, based on their ultimate guidebook – the California state constitution.