HAS THE CALIFORNIA SUPREME NOMINATED BOB MARSHALL?
The California Supreme Court rewrote marriage law for the citizens of California today.
California’s Supreme Court declared gay couples in the nation’s biggest state can marry – a monumental but perhaps short-lived victory for the gay rights movement Thursday that was greeted with tears, hugs, kisses and at least one instant proposal of matrimony.
Same-sex couples could tie the knot in as little as a month. But the window could close soon after – religious and social conservatives are pressing to put a constitutional amendment on the ballot in November that would undo the Supreme Court ruling and ban gay marriage.
“Essentially, this boils down to love. We love each other. We now have equal rights under the law,” declared a jubilant Robin Tyler, a plaintiff in the case along with her partner. She added: “We’re going to get married. No Tupperware, please.” (from here)
Love? Unreasoning lust or whatever it is, as far as four judges are concerned, it trumps Law, tradition, and common sense.
Here is the most laughable quote in the news article.
James Vaughn, director of the California Log Cabin Republicans, called the ruling a “conservative one.”
“The justices have ensured that the law treats all Californians fairly and equally. This decision is a good one for all families, gay and non-gay,” Vaughn said.
Conservative? For some people, I guess the definition of a word is unimportant. What matters is the feeling we attach to a word.
I will leave it to others to discuss the hypocrisy of the ruling. Instead I have a question. How does this court decision out of California increase the chances for the nomination of Bob Marshall as the Republican Party’s nominee for the Senate? Do you remember who secured passage of a Marriage Amendment to the Virginia Constitution? (See HJR 41 ) That was Bob Marshall. We cannot know for certain, but like as not Marshall saved us from the same kind of trouble that California has just begun to suffer.
Socially liberal activist groups have been abusing our court system for years. These people are slowly eroding our nation’s traditional values. Consider just a few of the things they have done.
- School prayer – our nation’s schools have become secular institutions where the mention of God is viewed with skepticism and even hostility. For example, our children are taught religion starts wars; nothing is mentioned about the contributions of Christianity to peaceful conflict resolution.
- Abortion – supposedly the courts permitted abortion only through the first trimester. Yet the truth is pro-life groups had to fight tooth and nail to stop partial birth abortion, an abortion method that kills babies shortly before they are full term. This success did not stop late term abortion. It only stopped a particularly grisly method of killing babies.
- Same-sex marriage – without any reasonable justification, the Supreme Courts of several states have taken it upon themselves to alter the institution of marriage. These judges would have the tail wag the dog. They would elevate the benefits of marriage over the responsibilities of marriage. Marriage exists to provide a safe haven for the upbringing of children. The idea that a same-sex couple should raise children is absurd. Consider the example. The vast majority of children enter the world with the potential to become normal heterosexual adults. Yet much human behavior is learned from the example of others.
Marshall has a proven record. He will fight every bit as hard as the opposition to maintain the integrity of our traditions and our laws. Consider again the most recent example, that rotten transportation bill, HB3202. Our General Assembly knew that rotten bill was unconstitutional. Nonetheless, the General Assembly still passed that rotten bill. When every other member of the General Assembly had stood aside and treated the matter as settled, Marshall fought back with unrelenting tenacity. When a lower court judge ruled the law as constitutional, Marshall took the matter to Virginia’s Supreme Court. Because they would not give up, Marshall and the people who stood with him carried the day (see Marshall v. NVTA and here).
Bob Marshall is not content to hold his ground. He fights to take back the ground we have lost. That is why we need to nominate and elect him as Virginia’s next Senator.
Other Views
Naturally, the blogs are ablaze with this issue.
Leslie Carbone is dead set against the ruling (here).
Blacknell (here) and Below the Beltway (here) think this is progress.
Raising Kaine gives kudos to Arnold Schwarzenegger, “one of the best governors in the country of EITHER party” (here).
Bear Drift recognizes “judiciocracy” when it sees it (here).
Vivian J. Paige observes that the California Supreme Court is “Republican-dominated” (here). When you consider which Republican you want to nominate for the Senate, please give Paige’s observation careful consideration.
“Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness…”
If we are to have a society where all citizens are equal under the law and government’s role is to be limited to its Constitutional limits, I do not see where government has any business telling citizens who they can be partners with, males females and transgendered people.
I agree with Bob Marshall, to the extent that the term “marriage” should remain applied only to that special (and some say holy) union of one man and one woman, for life. I was married for ten miserable years and in my view, as an institution, marriage is horribly over rated, so I don’t see any compelling reason why lesbians would be so eager to have their partnership called marriage.
I also agree with Bob Marshall in that the Code of Virginia provides most of the necessary protections that “domestic partners” in same sex relationships have been seeking when they ask to have their partnerships defined as marriage, under the law at least here in Virginia.
I am not willing to concede to the homosexual community the term, marriage. However, I believe that their partnerships should have equal protection under the law.
I think it is a tactical mistake to do battle on this marriage issue, when what the Republicans really want is to discourage the homosexuals from recruiting our kids/promoting the gay agenda, while encouraging some form of traditional family behavioral norms for everyone.
I believe that more ground towards winning the culture war can be gained by being more open about values; promoting values that you like, while openly offering well reasoned criticism about behavior that is seen as destructive to society.
A few examples from my own family: When I discovered that my daughter, Katie had two lesbian Girl Scout leaders, I should have insisted that those leaders be removed. Instead, I took Katie out of that Troop. The lesbians went right on recruiting more young girls into their lifestyle with the tacit approval of the Girl Scout Council. Later, Katie was urged to join a local girl’s softball team. Instead of thoroughly checking out who was running the program, my wife and I gave our permission. We soon found out that the coach and her “partner” were lesbians and openly talked to the girls about their so-called alternative lifestyle.
I have learned that we don’t have to be rude, cruel or “phobic” but the right approach is to make a strong rational case for removing lesbian Girl Scout leaders and coaches, by making it clear to league sponsors that your money will only support programs that promote traditional family values and respect for the fact that others are different from ourselves. The message should be that we all have an equal right to live here in America, but you and your family will only support programs that promote traditional values.
In retrospect, I now know that Katie was being recruited by these lesbians, right under the noses of church and school officials who were cowed into silence with the threat of charges of “homophobia.”
If citizens who still have traditional values feel compelled to stop this sort of recruiting by lesbians, then they must speak out loud and clear when they see it going on. It is not good enough to just move your kid to another league or another activity.
By targeting and shutting down programs where lesbians typically recruit: Girl Scouts, sports and even the local rescue squad (Tuckahoe), much of the lesbian agenda shall be thwarted. Without recruitment, they can’t continue promoting their “lifestyle.”
On the male side of this issue, the same sort of programs used to combat drugs (demand reduction programs) are effective in inoculating our young men against gay experimentation.
I am convinced that at least part of our society are genetically predisposed to the gay lifestyle, so I think that by showing compassion for those individuals, while making it clear that recruitment will not be tolerated, we can maintain a free society that also promotes the traditional family.
I wish I had a perfect solution, but this is a multifaceted issue. I am sure that just opposing gay marriage does not begin to address the underlying erosion of our traditional family. For that, I am willing to blame Pat Schroder, Gloria Allred and the rest of the feminazis, who, for their own political gains, pitted White women against White men beginning in the 1960s. I don’t blame gays for starting the erosion of the traditional family, but their aggressive recruiting efforts have made things worse.
J. Tyler Ballance – The government does not have any business telling citizens who they can be partners with. That is not the purpose of marriage. When two people come before a judge, does that judge have any idea whether or not their marriage will work? Does he know whether or not they share a true commitment towards each other, or just a fleeting lust? Is marriage a legal requirement before sex?
Marriage is not about what society thinks of sex. Whether homosexuality is a genetic predisposition is a red herring. Marriage exists to protect children. Marriage is about accepting responsibility for children.
Homosexual relationships have nothing to do with children. Homosexual activists want the legitimacy that marriage would confer their relationships, and, perhaps, they want to tear the marriage covenant down to the level of their own relationships.
Marriage has been a success. Most marriages last and succeed in protecting children. If we want to protect future generations, we must protect marriage as an institution for raising children. As your own experiences demonstrate, government will never love, care for, or protect children as much as parents.
So then in your opinion, if marriages exist to protect children, and divorses dissolve that institution for the protection of children, and anywhere between 40 and 50% of all marriages end in divorce, do you agree with me that California should also including a provision against divorce in their constitutional amendment?
You don’t have to outlaw all divorce, but I bet eliminating no-fault divorces would help because the divorce rate spiked in California after they were authorized by the Governor–I don’t remember who was governor at the time but knowing California it was probably some idiot Democrat.
Sam — Welcome to Citizen Tom.
Constitutions should be kept simple. What the fact that we have to define marriage in our Constitution shows is how far our society has fallen. Judges know marriage was never intended to be same-sex. Judges know they are expected to exercise judicial restraint. Yet because we no longer expect our judges to be honorable, we have to be more specific in the Constitution.
Unfortunately, being specific is not enough. If we do not appoint honorable men and women to the bench, not even the most specific and detailed language will suffice. Dishonorable judges will say the Constitution says whatever they want it to say.
What the California Constitution should say about divorce, I do not know. I will leave that to Californians to figure out. What I will say is that I agree that no-fault divorces have not helped. Because making a marriage work is not easy, we must avoid making divorce look like an easy out. When people have taken a vow, there should be no easy out. For the children of a failed marriage, there is nothing easy about the divorce of their parents.
I just remembered which governor authorized no-fault divorces in California: Ronald Reagan.
Sam – And your point?
With a few notable exceptions, few human beings enter the world perfect, and few leave it perfect. Was Ronald Reagan ever perfect? No Should we adopt every idea he ever had? No.
I suggest you read with Jesus had to say about divorce and the hard hearts of men. Each divorce represents a personal failure. But what role should government play in marriage? Conservatives disagree. I think that is because people disagree both about the purpose of government and the purpose of marriage.
I think government exists to protect people’s rights. In the case of marriage, the rights that need to be protected are those of children. When a man and a women marry, they bind themselves to each other for each other’s sake and for the sake of their children. What government must concern itself about is the children. When a marriage fails, the children will be hurt.
So Tom, are you saying that a woman who is unable to have children of her own should not be allowed to get married? What about the man and woman who want to get married but don’t want to have kids? Should that also be forbidden?
Valerie – My post speaks primarily to the common sense of simple honesty. The California Supreme Court has no legal basis for same-sex marriage. Anything else is sophistry. You know that, and I know that. Don’t we?
Your question asks whether same-sex marriages should exist. That is not the business of our court system to determine. In Virginia, we have passed a constitutional amendment affirming that marriage is between a man and a woman. Why? Different people have their own reasons, but I think most have to with children.
Are there marriages that do not produce children? Yes, but our traditions were established long ago. The definition of marriage works pretty well as it is. Except to make a silly argument, no one would suggest prying into people’s privacy to worry about unusual exceptions.
What homosexual activists want has nothing to do with marriage or the rights of children. Instead, they want society to affirm their peculiar sexual arrangements. This demand infringes on the religious rights of the those people, myself included, who believe that homosexual sex is sinful.
This demand infringes on the religious rights of the those people, myself included, who believe that homosexual sex is sinful.
Some how my entire post didn’t make the copy/paste transfer…here’s the rest of my comment…
But Tom we don’t use government to make what you perceive as religious sins into civil crimes simply because they offend your religious beliefs
NotNotJayHughes – Welcome. Still finding time to waste blogging?
The issue is the establishment of religion. Because such unions cannot produce children, there is very little, if any, reason for our government to accord same-sex unions legal recognition. Why advocate such a thing? The answer is to refute to the religious beliefs of those who think homosexual sex is wrong. That put government in the religion business, and it does not belong there.
Citizen Tom:
Still no real life? Have you ever kissed a girl? or a guy for that matter? Tell ya what, take off your Starfleet uniform and your Spock ears and let’s have an adult moment, shall we?
I’m sorry that you can’t understand that the inability to conceive offspring does NOT invalidate a marriage. If that were so then all childless marriages would be rendred null and void by your argument.
NotNotJayHughes – Look back and read what you wrote. You embarrassed yourself and the cause you purport to support. What did you say to support your case? Nothing.
It appears you spent more effort considering how you might insult me than you did on the cause you support. There is nothing adult about such behavior. My guess is that like a child you still confuse insult with reasoned argument.
Because some matters are best settle up front, people get married in anticipation of having children. With relatively few exceptions, all married couples were married before they had children.
“What did you say to support your case? Nothing.”
Oh really? Looks like we got a case of the pot calling the kettle black….how do you support this anecdotal gem: “people get married in anticipation of having children..”
What survey or data to you point to substantiate that claim, Tom? Not all people get married in anticipation of having children, Tom. Some people get married with NO intention of EVER having children. My aunt and uncle are a perfect example.
And whether folks get married to have children or NOT have children, it’s not the state’s business to micromanage that either way.
And as for insults…you stop insulting me and I’ll stop insulting you. In fact, if you look at my first comment on this thread there was no insult present at all, simply a comment disagreeing with you, that’s all.
Looks to me like you’re the kind that likes to dish it out but doesn’t like it too much when somebody dishes back. I’m more than happy to have a polite dialogue on this subject but I’m not going to let you give me s–t without giving some back.
Tom:
The other aspect that really needs addressing is your very weak argument that allowing gay marriage infringes on your religious rights. Honestly, I don’t support marriage for gay couples myself…civil unions are fine by me…but this argument doesn’t hold a molecule of water.
Just because you have to endure seeing something that you find sinful, yet harms nobody, you still have the right to worship peaceably as you see fit or not worship, for that matter. In no way are your First Amendment rights infringed upon.
NotNotJayHughes – I am not going to debate whether you insulted me or I you insulted you. Either that is self-evident or it is not.
As to your arguments.
1. Do people get married in anticipation of having children?
The relationship between sexual intercourse and children has been well studied and documented. When parents explain the birds and the bees to their children, the usual suggestion is to wait until marriage before putting this lesson into practice. You really do not know why?
Perhaps you missed or misunderstood this lecture. Some parents do find the subject more than a trifle embarrassing to explain to their children. May I suggest a visit to the public library?
2. Would the government’s endorsement of same-sex unions as marriage or civil unions infringe on the People’s religious rights?
This question is really is two questions. The first is this. Why does the government need to endorse the same-sex unions? The second is this? How would the government’s endorsement of same-sex unions infringe upon the religious rights of others?
Does the government need to endorse same-sex unions? The simple answer to that is no. Nobody is infringing on the rights of homosexuals. Marriage is not a right; it is a responsibility.
The government is actually choosy about who it marries. For example, when people insist on practicing polygamy, we throw them in jail. Why? The practice violates accepted norms. Polygamists can produce plenty of children, but we do not want children produced this way. The problem? The practice of polygamy is regarded as inherently unhealthy for children and society. We fear the inequalities that would likely result.
Is this aversion easily explained? No? Is it widely contested? Not yet. But do not worry. Sooner or later some goofy group will find a way to get the news media to provide a sympathetic portrayal of polygamists.
Similarly, most people see problems with homosexuality. The practice is regarded by many as unhealthy for the participants and a bad example for children.
Consider another example. If you take a couple of dogs to the Justice of the Peace, that judge will not marry the dogs. Would it do any harm to marry the dogs? There would be no visible damage, but it would be beneath the dignity of both the judge and the institution of marriage.
Would the government’s endorsement of same-sex unions violate people’s religious rights? Major world religions, and that most certainly includes the Christian religion, teach that homosexual practices are sinful. By licensing homosexual unions, the government would be providing its explicit moral endorsement. If there is no practical reason for this endorsement, then for no good reason the government would be taking sides against as this aspect of Christian religious practice. Where would this taking of sides stop? It would not stop. That is why same-sex marriage violates the First Amendment.