23 May 18 Conclusions to Take Away from California Supreme Court’s Decision to Constitutionalize Same-Sex ‘Marriage’
1— The court parroted bromides commonly tendered by the homosexual agenda, including: comparing restrictions of same-sex “marriage” to past laws barring interracial marriage, and same-sex “marriage” does not impact heterosexual marriage. Race cannot be compared to homosexuality because no one is born homosexual. The court re-defined “marriage” for everyone, including heterosexuals, and it rendered meaningless the gender of fathers, mothers and children.
2—The court did not accept the argument that marriage is fundamentally about raising children, and it argued that through adoption and assisted reproduction individuals incapable of bearing children are capable of raising children. This logic fails to recognize that both genders contribute in unique ways to the psychological development of children.
3—The court said marriage is basically about individual happiness. This logic discounts children and fails to recognize that marriages based primarily on personal happiness are lacking in depth and contribute to the high divorce rate.
4—The court a) cited the dissent of a New York Supreme Court justice who last year argued that tradition is not a sufficient argument for maintaining the status quo of heterosexual-only marriage; and b) rejected the Court of Appeals’ basis for using the absence of historical or precedential support for same-sex “marriage.” If history and tradition are accorded so little weight, then why do courts go to such great lengths to cite precedents?
5—The court cited changes in the State of California’s understanding and legal treatment of homosexuals and asserted that homosexuals are fully capable of entering into the kind of loving and enduring committed relationships that may serve as the foundation of family. These relationships are actually less likely to last, more fraught with behavioral problems, more infidelity, more likely to end quickly and less likely to provide stability for children in the home.
6—The court dealt with the state’s Domestic Partner Act at great length only to conclude the act did not have a significant impact on its decision. Because the state legislature had already enacted a comprehensive domestic partnership law granting to same-sex couples virtually all of the substantive legal rights and benefits enjoyed by opposite-sex couples, the plaintiffs were relieved of the burden of presenting a constitutional challenge to obtain those rights and benefits. This indicates that the Left won this case by making incremental gains in the past.
7—The court referred to a 1972 constitutional amendment adding “privacy” to the “inalienable rights” of all Californians and said the state constitutional right to marry now falls within an individual’s interest in private autonomy. The privacy argument could be used to defuse any state law, but was selectively used in this example of judicial activism.
8—The court cited past court decisions and the United Nations for recognition of the family as the basic unit of society and then assumed any adult coupling can achieve these ideals. The ideals cited were established by heterosexual marriage over the annals of time and have never been equaled by homosexual parenting.
9—The court ruled that the right to marry represents the right of an individual to establish a legally recognized family with the person of one’s choice and as such is of fundamental significance to society and to the individual. The court cited no social science studies to show that alternative family forms provide the same benefits to society contributed by heterosexual-headed families. The burden of proof still remains with the court.
10—The court recognized an individual’s “opportunity to live a happy, meaningful and satisfying life as a full member of society” as grounds for granting all individuals and couples without regard to sexual orientation the right to marry. This thinking opens the door for polygamy and all manner of marital arrangements.
11—The court rejected the plaintiffs’ claim of “sex discrimination” as it relates to the California equal protection clause, but it insisted that “the current California statutes realistically must be viewed as discriminating against gay persons on the basis of their homosexual orientation.” The court also stated that heterosexual and homosexual persons have the legal right to marry someone of the opposite gender, but nevertheless insisted that behavior was applicable to the equal protection clause.
12—The court ruled that denying “marriage” to same-sex couples amounts to “second-class citizenship.” Nomenclature matters, and states should continue to protect traditional marriage and oppose counterfeit forms of “marriage.”
13—According to the court, the circumstance that the majority of Californians voted in favor of retaining the traditional definition of marriage does not exempt the statutory limitation from constitutional review, nor does it demonstrate that the voters’ objective represents a constitutionally compelling state interest for purposes of equal protection principles. This is judicial arrogance at its highest.
14—The court stated that in the past, interracial marriage was banned, women were excluded from many occupations and official duties and racial minorities were relegated to separate facilities and institutions. Race and gender are immutable characteristics, but one’s sexual orientation is not a basis for “minority group” status.
15—The court acknowledged a heavy burden of proof upon the state to demonstrate why homosexuals should not be permitted same-sex “marriage rights. However, the governor and the attorney general both approve of same-sex “marriage.” It is thus not surprising that the court found their arguments less than compelling.
16—The court stated that “affording same-sex couples the opportunity to obtain the designation of marriage will not impinge upon the religious freedom of any religious organization, official, or any other person; no religion will be required to change its religious policies or practices with regard to same-sex couples, and no religious officiant will be required to solemnize a marriage in contravention of his or her religious beliefs.” This is a hollow “protection” for those churches, businesses and individuals who don’t support this court’s decision. The U.S. Supreme Court declared that the Boy Scouts and other organizations have the right to determine their own membership, but that did not prevent cities, states and political parties from demonizing the Boy Scouts.
17—The court concluded that Family Code section 300 – which designates marriage as the union of a man and a woman – is unconstitutional and must be stricken from the statute. The remaining statutory language must be understood as making the designation of marriage available both to opposite-sex and same-sex couples. The limitation of Family Code section 308.5 “can have no constitutionally permissible effect in light of the constitutional conclusions set forth in this opinion, that provision cannot stand.” These actions circumvent the legislative process and the will of the people of California. As Justice Marvin Baxter dissented, the majority violated the separation of powers.
18—The majority placed great reliance on Perez v. Sharp (1948), a case that ruled in favor of interracial marriage. However, Perez and many other cases establishing the fundamental right to marry were all based on the common understanding of marriage as the union of a man and a woman.