Marriage
Activist Judges Overturn People of California: Homosexuals Must Be Allowed to Marry
By Kami Dalton, United Families International Intern
May 16, 2008
Yesterday, the high court of California decided 4-3 to overturn the will of the people by legislating from the bench that homosexual couples must be allowed to marry.
The decision in effect declares two laws unconstitutional: Proposition 22, which protected the definition of marriage as strictly meaning a union between one man and one woman, and the state’s domestic partnership law, which allowed homosexuals basically every right associated with marriage except the name itself.
The justification for the decision was that marriage to any person an individual chooses is a fundamental right granted by the Constitution, and therefore, that only allowing heterosexual couples to marry is sexual orientation-based discrimination. The court brushed off the concerns of pro-family groups by stating heterosexual married couples would not be deprived of any right just because homosexuals could marry and completely ignored concerns about homosexual couples raising children (p. 11). The court validated the homosexual lifestyle throughout the ruling by repeatedly stating in its opinion that the homosexual relationship requires “dignity and respect equal” to that of heterosexual couples.
The opinion of the high court (available here) reads:
“Furthermore, in contrast to earlier times, our state now recognizes that an individual’s capacity to establish a loving and long-term committed relationship with another person and responsibly to care for and raise children does not depend upon the individual’s sexual orientation, and, more generally, that an individual’s sexual orientation – like a person’s race or gender – does not constitute a legitimate basis upon which to deny or withhold legal rights. We therefore conclude that in view of the substance and significance of the fundamental constitutional right to form a family relationship, the California Constitution properly must be interpreted to guarantee this basic civil right to all Californians, whether gay or heterosexual, and to same-sex couples as well as to opposite-sex couples” (p. 7).
Ironically, the domestic partnership law – passed by the legislature soon after the people passed Proposition 22 in 2000 – was meant to chip away at the protection of marriage and paved the way for such a ruling. As written in the opinion and quoted above, the majority of the justices relied in part on the domestic partnership law recognizing homosexual relationships in the ruling.
The role of the domestic partnership law in the ruling was not a surprise to those who previously saw it as harmful to the protection of marriage.
Prior to the ruling, Bill Duncan, executive director of the Utah-based Marriage Law Foundation, told UFI, “The arguments in California are somewhat unique compared to other states because the state has already given all the benefits of marriage to homosexual couples, they’ve just called it something different. California can’t argue that law should treat homosexual and heterosexual couples differently.”
Interestingly, the court wrote in its opinion that “very strongly held differences of opinion exist on the matter of policy” – and named 1) the opinion that homosexuals should be allowed to marry, and 2) the opinion that marriage should be reserved for heterosexual couples “even as the state extends comparable rights and responsibilities to committed same-sex couples” (p. 5) – acknowledging no other opinion.
Duncan was also correct that the court would use as precedent Perez v. Sharp, in which California ruled (20 years before being considered by the U.S. Supreme Court) that a ban of interracial marriage was unconstitutional (pp. 5-6). The majority of the justices interpreted that ruling as meaning marriage and establishment of “an officially recognized and protected family” must be available to all, with any individual the person chooses. This logic runs contrary to the arguments by the Proposition 22 Legal Defense Fund, led by the Alliance Defense Fund.
The Legal Defense Fund pointed out, among other things, that homosexual activists 1) assumed commitment is enough for the state to base marriage on rather than taking into account procreation, 2) “made no effort to prove that same-sex couples are similarly situated with opposite-sex couples in regard to the legitimate purpose of the marriage laws,” and 3) failed to acknowledge that marriage laws do not discriminate on the basis of sex since both men and women have the same rights under the marriage law. (Answer to Petitioners Opening Brief, pp. 41, 47, 49).
The dissenting justices wrote that the ruling was an inappropriate example of judicial activism. Justice Baxter said boldly that, “Nothing in our Constitution, express or implicit, compels the majority’s startling conclusion that the age-old understanding of marriage – an understanding recently confirmed by an initiative law – is no longer valid” (Concurring and Dissenting Opinion by Marvin Baxter, p. 1).
The ruling makes it all the more important for the people of California to establish once and for all what they meant when they passed Proposition 22 in order to protect marriage. Signatures are currently being validated to place a constitutional marriage amendment defining marriage as a union between one man and one woman on the ballot in November. Considering more than 61 percent of Californians voted in favor of Proposition 22, there is hope for marriage in California this fall.
Ron Prentice, chairman of the ProtectMarriage.com coalition, said: “The Court’s rationale for its decision should prompt outrage from the majority of California’s citizens. The will of the people has been completely undermined by four individuals. In November, the people will have an opportunity to overrule the Court’s decision by passing a constitutional amendment – and California’s voters must respond by voting.”
"Stay Alive" trademark exclusively licensed by United Families International from its owner,
©2001 - 2007 United Families International. All rights reserved. No content, images, or other information may be used from this site without prior written consent of United Families International or original authors.
