As goes California…
- Jun 9, 2008 - 4
The California Supreme Court, in a split decision handed down on May 15, legalized homosexual marriage in the most populous state in the nation and made California the second state (behind Massachusetts) to strike down by judicial fiat the traditional definition of marriage.
The court’s ruling vacated Proposition 22, a law passed in 2000 to prohibit homosexual marriage and legally define marriage as between one man and one woman.
California voters approved Proposition 22 by a large majority of 61-39%, but the will of the people apparently carried no weight with the court.
“[W]e determine that the language of [current California law] limiting the designation of marriage to a union ‘between a man and a woman’ is unconstitutional and must be stricken from the statute, and that the remaining statutory language must be understood as making the designation of marriage available both to opposite-sex and same-sex couples,” Chief Justice Ronald George wrote in a 121-page opinion for the court.
The 4-3 ruling was condemned in strong language by the justices who voted in the minority.
“[A] bare majority of this court, not satisfied with the pace of democratic change, now abruptly forestalls that process and substitutes, by judicial fiat, its own social policy views for those expressed by the People themselves,” Associate Justice Marvin R. Baxter wrote. “Undeterred by the strong weight of state and federal law and authority, the majority invents a new constitutional right, immune from the ordinary process of legislative consideration. The majority finds that our Constitution suddenly demands no less than a permanent redefinition of marriage, regardless of the popular will.”
Another Associate Justice, Carol A. Corrigan, has identified herself as a supporter of homosexual marriage but indicated that she understood the implications of judges using their authority to overrule the express will of the people.
“Four votes on this court should not disturb the balance reached by the democratic process, a balance that is still being tested in the political arena,” she wrote. “Certainly initiative measures are not immune from constitutional review. However, we should hesitate to use our authority to take one side in an ongoing political debate.”
Why did the judges choose to interfere in the “ongoing political debate,” as Corrigan so correctly put it? There’s a simple explanation. Californians who support traditional marriage have been working for some time to get a proposed state constitution amendment on the ballot that would read, “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.”
Traditional marriage supporters finally reached their goal after several years of hard work, and the proposed amendment will be on the ballot this November—but the California Supreme Court has now taken sides just a few months before the vote will be taken.
There has never been a clearer picture of judicial activism, defined as governing from the bench.
What does all this mean for Mississippians? Read closely the comments of radical homosexual rights supporter Gavin Newsome, mayor of San Francisco, issued after the California Supreme Court ruling: “As California goes, so goes the rest of the nation. [Homosexual marriage nationwide is] inevitable. This door’s wide open now. It’s gonna happen, whether you like it or not. This is the future and it’s now [in California].”
Although the voters of Mississippians have taken measures to protect the traditional definition of marriage in this state, the traditional marriage voters of California on May 15 found themselves thwarted by judicial activism.
We may believe it couldn’t happen here, but if we are less than vigilant we might discover otherwise. Then there are the federal courts…
Think about it.
This article is reprinted from the May 29, 2008, issue of The Baptist Record, the newspaper of the Mississippi Baptist Convention. Based on reporting by Baptist Press.
Further Learning
Learn more about: Family, Marriage, Sexual Purity, Homosexuality, Citizenship, Legislation
4 comments (post your own) feed
1 On Jun 9th, 2008, at 8:06am, Dan Valdes wrote:
The court’s opinion found that excluding same sex couples from marriage “clearly is not necessary in order to afford full protection” of the rights and benefits of marriage to opposite sex couples ....
and further that by… “denying “ same sex “ couples access to the familiar and highly favored designation of marriage is likely to cast doubt on whether the official family relationship of same sex couples enjoys dignity equal to that of opposite sex couples”.....
there by denying gays the right to marriage perpetuates the premise.... “that gay individuals and same sex couples are in some respects ‘second class citizens‘“..."a premise"..."now emphatically rejected by this state.”
2 On Jun 9th, 2008, at 8:30am, Mae Harris wrote:
These are urgent days and as Israel is a target and simply being a Jew is dangerous so is just simply being a Christian. The Christian people have taken a stand against allowing homosexuality to increase and this is important.
We must always take a stand against sin and judge sin. Each individual must decide the question - What would Jesus do? And what comes to my mind as I see judges rewriting the Constitution from the bench is . . . Matthew 23:13
“But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in.”
This statement by Jesus also pertains to Judges that call evil good and allow sin to increase.
What we permit - increases. America has already voted into office a known adulterer in Bill Clinton. We let our comfort, the economy and money, outweigh the truth of sin. To uphold sin to fill your belly will only make you know hunger.
3 On Jun 9th, 2008, at 11:15am, dan Valdes wrote:
Mr. Perkins states that the court rules by fiat.
Webster defines that to mean.. “an authoritative or arbitrary order” but nothing could be further from arbitrary in this case.
The California Supreme Court deliberated this case on precedent and adjudicated the merits of the case based on cases that have come before the courts in years past in addition to the constitutionality of state mandated separate institutions of domestic partnership and marriage.
Most notable was Perez vs. Lippold (Sharp) 1948 where the court recognized that interracial bans on marriage violated the Fourteenth Amendment of the Federal Constitution.
Great deliberation based on cases coming before the courts go into this landmark decision for civil liberty for ALL citizens, gay and straight.
4 On Jun 14th, 2008, at 10:31pm, Harry Rockefeller wrote:
Once again Dan, speaking as the lawyer for the majority, makes [legal] sense. If this decision to go against over 200 years of U.S. moral (marriage) history is *really* legal fiat then impeachment of Chief Justice Ronald George, who wrote the majority opinion, is in order, right? But, this will not be done. When will Baptists, actually nearly all Christians, recognize how to fight this legal battle?