In an act of outrageous judicial arrogance, four justices in black robes overturned the will of four-and-a-half million people in California yesterday and redefined marriage. More to the point, since it was a 4-3 split, one justice overturned the people's will. The California Supreme Court said that under the state constitution's equal protection law, same-sex couples have a right to marry and that state and local officials should take all necessary steps to begin issuing marriage licenses.
Don't underestimate what just happened. Massachusetts has not become the Las Vegas of same-sex marriage because of a law that restricts residents of other states whose marriage laws do not allow genderless marriage from coming to the Bay State to get married. California has no such law. For those in any state who wish to be in a same-sex marriage, they can come to California, get their nuptials, and then head home claiming their marriage is legal. Thus begins a legal free-for-all that may begin showing up in the courts of every state.
Same-sex marriage may become California's best known export and advocates for the homosexual agenda know this is a winner-take-all game. Education and religious freedom stand on the brink as well.
In 2000, 61% of California voters overwhelmingly agreed that marriage was between a man and a woman, affirming that they didn't want to undertake a radical experiment with something as basic and important to the well-being of children as family structure.
The judges think they know better. A concurring opinion in the case by Justice J. Kennard makes this breathtaking assertion, "The architects of our federal and state Constitutions understood that widespread and deeply rooted prejudices may lead majoritarian institutions to deny fundamental freedoms to unpopular minority groups, and that the most effective remedy for this form of oppression is an independent judiciary charged with the solemn responsibility to interpret and enforce the constitutional provisions guaranteeing fundamental freedoms and equal protection."
In other words, we, the intellectually and culturally elite justices know better than not only the will of the people, but all the accumulated moral tradition of the past . Moral objections to sexual anarchy in partners is only a widespread and deeply rooted prejudice so they declare and, therefore, so it is. What happened to the idea that government is of the people, by the people and for the people and that the people's voice should be considered in something as basic as overturning a foundational societal structure like marriage?
An End Run
What is astonishing is that these four justices made this decision, knowing full well that those seeking to put a marriage protection state constitutional amendment on the California ballot in the fall had gathered over 1.1 million signatures, and thus, though the signatures haven't yet been certified by the state, it is certain that the matter will be put before the people this fall.
Personal Autonomy
Absent in the Court's discussion was any consideration of the common good or the thousands of studies that demonstrate that the best environment for raising children is with their own biological mother and father. They appealed instead to this rather fuzzy, kum-ba-yah standard, saying, "The constitutionally based right to marry... are so integral to an individual's liberty and personal autonomy that they may not be eliminated or abrogated by the Legislature or by the electorate through the statutory initiative."
In other words, if some choice is basic to an individual's sense of autonomy, can there be no law against it? Does this mean that the law must support any family structure that people can conceive of-according to their sense of autonomy? What about polygamy? What about various groupings of folks who say they want to be married? Why should marriage be about two instead of about three, four or five? Though the court said their ruling had no implications for polygamy or incest, that is the door their reasoning opened.
What else that has always been considered moral will fall under this standard of placing individual liberty and personal autonomy above all other considerations?
The justices also said that the state has no compelling interest to protect traditional marriage. What? Marriage between a man and a woman offers no good to a society that makes it worth protecting? That is a jaw-dropping deception. How are we expected to believe this empty reasoning?
To reference the court opinion (which is rather lengthy) click here.
The Ripples Go On and On
With a ruling like this, children will go to school and learn that sexuality can take many forms-all equally valid, natural and normal. They will learn that the idea of having a mother and father as the basis for a family is hate speech. They will see a world where the nature of what is considered moral has been vastly altered, and being young and vulnerable, they will undoubtedly be altered too. Why? Because how can schools not avoid teaching same-sex marriage when it has become legal in society?
If, as the court asserts, it is against the state constitution to make any distinction based on gender orientation, what does this mean for religious freedom? Scholars agree that same-sex marriage and religious freedom are headed for a train wreck-and the wreckage will be on the side of religious freedom. This is a consideration so vast, I'll discuss it in a future email.
