California ruling lousy legal logic
- Jun 26, 2008 - 2
“The California Constitution properly must be interpreted to guarantee this basic civil right [the right to marry] to all Californians, whether gay or heterosexual, and to same-sex couples as well as to opposite-sex couples,” declared the California Supreme Court. The court ruled 4-3 on May 15 that “homosexual marriage” must be sanctioned in the Golden State.
Although California’s high court says that marriage should be guaranteed to all Californians, it really does not believe its own ruling – not really.
When the ruling takes effect, which it is set to do in 30 days, marriage is still going to be regulated. All Californians will not be allowed to marry whomever they desire, and there will still be restrictions.
So who will be able to enter into marriage in California? According to Chief Justice Ronald M. George, who wrote the majority opinion, only individuals who wish “to establish a loving and long-term committed relationship with another person” will be allowed to marry. In other words, only couples – heterosexual or homosexual – will have the right to be married in California.
A father and daughter will not be allowed to get married – not even if they are both of legal age. The same goes for a mother and son of legal age. A man will not be able to marry more than one woman or vice-a-versa. In fact, no combination of multiple-marriage will be permitted. Additionally, no one will be allowed to marry his dog, ferret or iguana.
While it may sound like I am being facetious, I am reasonably certain that you could find any number of people in California who fit the aforementioned descriptions and who would “marry” given the opportunity. However, the powers that be in America’s most populous state will not allow them to fulfill the longing of their hearts.
On what basis do the California Supremes deny an incestuous marriage? What logic does the court use in refusing marriages that are polygamous or polyamorous? What is the reason for denying any person the right to marry anyone or anything?
According to the Supreme Court of California’s incredible legal acumen, there is really no justification for barring any configuration of marriage.
Some might argue that many of the activities I mentioned above are illegal or at the least repulsive. Yet, once upon a time homosexuality was an illegal activity everywhere in the United States. And it was not too long ago that most people thought it was a repulsive practice as well.
If liberals and homosexual activists are correct and marriage is nothing more than a social construct that must be adapted to society as culture becomes more depraved, then it is just a matter of time until adult incest, polygamy, polyamory and bestiality are all accepted as legitimate “relationships.” And those who practice such aberrant behavior will be allowed to marry.
Lest you think my argument is an overreaction, it should be noted that there are activists who advocate for all the above.
In fact, there are those in academia who believe the social stigma should be removed from all of the aforementioned behaviors. If the activists and academicians have their way, one day marriage will indeed be for all who desire to wed – whoever or whatever.
The Supreme Court of California has ruled that they believe marriage should be extended to all the residents of the Golden State. However, they don’t really believe what they have ruled – not really. If they did, they would have removed all barriers to marriage. If they adhere to their lousy legal logic they eventually will do just that and allow any and every “marriage” arrangement.
Since our nation’s founding the biblical ideal for marriage has been the model for American society. Although the Bible does describe various forms of marriage, it only prescribes marriage between one man and one woman.
This is the biblical ideal.
When a society recognizes any arrangement other than heterosexual monogamy, it opens a Pandora’s Box of unintended consequences. And the ramifications for culture are disturbing.
This article is reprinted from the May 29, 2008, issue of the Baptist Message, the newsjournal of the Louisiana Baptist Convention.
Further Learning
Learn more about: Family, Marriage, Sexual Purity, Homosexuality, Citizenship, Legislation
2 comments (post your own) feed
1 On Jun 27th, 2008, at 3:28pm, Dan Valdes wrote:
Kelly Boggs says…
“If liberals and homosexual activists are correct and marriage is nothing more than a social construct that must be adapted to society as culture becomes more depraved”....
but she misses the crux of the issues here. The court saw that the right to marry a person of our choosing and to create a home to our accord is a fundamental right of privacy and civil rights.
Gay people are not depraved individuals, as might be Ms. Boggs opinion, and she is welcome to it; however, her right to her opinion should not constrict my personal liberty. She can believe whatever she wishes but that does not give her, nor anyone else, the right to IMPOSE upon gay people her restrictive opinions.
I thought the ERLC would support personal liberty and freedom.
2 On Jun 30th, 2008, at 5:56pm, Paul Benedict wrote:
The court never said this. The court did very little to explain what it meant was being denied to same sex couples. It A. Struck down proposition 22 and B. Ordered? That no marriage license in California recognize men and women as husband and wives. Married people are “Party A” or “Party B.” The court basically banned marriage in California (New anniversary cards are now being legislated).