Saturday, May 23, 2009

Prop 8: Will CA Supreme Court Cave to Taunting of Homosexual Lobby?

The California Supreme court is scheduled to decide on Tuesday whether the recently approved Proposition 8 was done legally or not. In the run-up to the decision, Prop 8 taunting is in high gear--most of it vilely and hatefully against the new law. In March the California justices intimated that the case against Proposition 8 doesn't have much merit. I hope they don't bow to the pressure of the well-organized taunters from the homosexual lobby.

Update 5/26/2009 - Court Upholds Proposition 8

Share/Save/Bookmark
In the Book of Mormon, the prophet Nephi speaks of a "great and spacious" building that would be filled with people who revel in mocking those who disagree with them.
26 And I also cast my eyes round about, and beheld, on the other side of the river of water, a great and spacious building; and it stood as it were in the air, high above the earth.
27 And it was filled with people, both old and young, both male and female; and their manner of dress was exceedingly fine; and they were in the attitude of mocking and pointing their fingers towards those who had come at and were partaking of the fruit [of the gospel of Jesus Christ].

Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ, 1 Nephi 8
I wasn't empirically sure what Nephi was talking about until Proposition 8, which defines marriage as between a man and a woman, was placed on the California ballot. Since then, and especially since Prop 8's passage, the pro-homosexual lobby has proven itself to be a large slice of the proprietorship of the building in Nephi's dream.

The taunters, out en mass, may have a deleterious effect on the decision of the California Supreme court's pending decision on Proposition 8. The Court
will rule Tuesday on the validity of a voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage, a decision that will end months of speculation over whether gay couples can resume marrying in the state.

The high court announced the pending opinion on its Web site Friday morning.
What happens if the court upholds Proposition 8? Possible mayhem.
Gay rights advocates have scheduled marches throughout California and in several other states for Tuesday evening. Organizers say the gatherings will be celebratory if the court rules in their favor and angry if Proposition 8 is upheld.

Several religious groups that support same-sex marriage also have encouraged their members to block the streets outside the court's San Francisco headquarters and to participate in other acts of civil disobedience if the decision is disappointing.
The challenge to Proposition 8's legality is based on the flimsiest of pretexts. Interestingly, the Court has intimated that it agrees that the challenge is weak.
[Protesters] argued that the initiative revised the state constitution's equal protection clause to such a dramatic degree that its sponsors needed the Legislature's approval to submit it to voters.

Several justices gave that argument a skeptical reception during a March 5 hearing, and court observers have doubted the Supreme Court would abrogate California's vigorous citizen initiative process by invalidating the ban.
I'm still nervous, though, that the law won't be upheld--for two reasons. First, just about a year ago, the California Supreme Court, in a bizarrely anarchist move, found a "right" to homosexual marriage seated deep within the bowels of its extra-legal wrangling. Far more troubling, however, is the vitriol with which the homosexual lobby seems to be pressuring Californians to change their minds and the justices to overturn the law.

Yesterday a tweet storm erupted on Twitter on the subject of "Prop 8". The storm came from those against Proposition 8. A great deal of it was along the lines of those who "LMAO" every time they watch this decidedly unfunny screed that targets supporters of traditional marriage.

Dallin H Oaks of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, spoke in the April 2009 General Conference of the Church that
...some who know better seem to be straining to win the praise of those who mock and scoff from "the great and spacious building" identified in [Nephi's] vision as the pride of the world.
In large part because of their fear of those who can yell really loud, there seem to be fewer and fewer people in the world who will stand up for things that really matter.

Traditional marriage is one of those issues that people seem tired of defending. The loosening of morals beginning in the 1960's, the weakening of the family through divorce, and the desecration of children through encouragement of easy abortion have wreaked enough havoc on families. Our social situation is dire enough already without the California court making two incorrect decisions in a row about homosexual marriage.

I hold out some hope that the California Court won't ruin society further; I hope they have enough integrity to admit that a law is a law. Being one to look for silver linings, however: if the justices decide in the negative, the decision could make California's economic crisis a thing of the past for hundreds of thousands more residents of that state--when they move to other states wherein society still has a much greater chance of flourishing under the aegis of traditional marriage.

Update 5/26/2009 - Court Upholds Proposition 8. Let the violent civil disobedience begin.



24 comments:

  1. Crazy Libertarian5/23/2009 04:55:00 PM

    What if civil government just got completely out of the marriage business?

    The institution of marriage predates our republic and every other form of civil government. According to the bible marriage is the oldest most basic form of government. When Americans turn to our civil democratic government and ask that it provide the legal authority behind the authenticity of our familial relationships we open ourselves up to a situation where the legal definition of marriage can be perverted and changed in a way affects all of society.

    The situation you're complaining about in this post is another example of the foolishness of social conservatives who look to government to enforce morality instead of retaining that blessed authority and responsibility in their own families, churches, and non-governmental civil organizations.

    ReplyDelete
  2. The Pursuit of Happiness5/23/2009 09:59:00 PM

    IF the CA Supreme Court upholds Prop 8, most likely it will be because they don't want to offend the "will of the people." However, this is not the "will of the people" though when the Morman and Catholic churches poured millions into Prop 8. Therefore, my friends, the argument is inherently flawed. Justice and equality will ultimately prevail.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Some of us could not care less what is written in the Bible or the Book of Mormon. The CONSTITUTION (i.e. the supreme law of the United States) says that all our laws must treat people equally.

    If the California Supreme Court ducks this issue, then they will be wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  4. 我想成人光碟不知道好不好看。

    ReplyDelete
  5. RMWarnick,

    The U. S. Constitution doesn't require gay marriage. There hasn't yet been an argument supporting your assertion that doesn't require a huge stretch of the imagination. The best argument relies on the 14th amendment but even that is silly when taken on its merits.

    The California Supreme Court has no choice but to rule that this amendment to California's constitution is legitimate. There is no serious argument being made that it isn't.

    No worries for your side though...it won't be long before Californians decide to repeal this amendment using the same legal procedure Prop 8 supporters followed. You can then legitimately argue that the law is on your side.

    Democracy at work...

    ReplyDelete
  6. Anonymous,

    How typically cowardly that you hide your identity yet speak so boldly against other citizen's rights. If you read carefully, you see that RWarnick did not say the constitution required gay marriage, he said that it requires that our laws treat all people equally. That is the very heart of this matter.

    Frank, you need not fear the outcome of this ruling. Gay people are already living in committed relationships. Absent marriage rights, they nevertheless seek such relationships, just like all of us. If Prop 8 is overturned tomorrow, nothing will really change in your world.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I ought to give Frank kudos for his Monty Python reference. "Now go away or I will taunt you a second time!"

    ReplyDelete
  8. Richard,

    I'm glad someone noticed my creativity in using the Monty Python picture.

    ;-)

    Bekkieann (and Crazy Libertarian),

    I am glad that there are gays who are living in committed relationships. You're right that nothing much will change in my world. However, a lot could potentially change in the lives of children if those gays who are NOT living in healthy, committed relationships decide that they want a human pet.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Since when was marriage of any type a civil right? Please back up your answer with the appropriate legal/constitutional references.

    This, my friends, is why the CASC upheld Prop 8.

    ReplyDelete
  10. D. Sirmize,

    From the CA Supreme Court:

    "First, we must determine the nature and scope of the “right to marry” — a
    right that past cases establish as one of the fundamental constitutional rights
    embodied in the California Constitution. Although, as an historical matter, civil
    marriage and the rights associated with it traditionally have been afforded only to
    opposite-sex couples, this court’s landmark decision 60 years ago in Perez v.
    6
    Sharp (1948) 32 Cal.2d 7114 — which found that California’s statutory provisions
    prohibiting interracial marriages were inconsistent with the fundamental
    constitutional right to marry, notwithstanding the circumstance that statutory
    prohibitions on interracial marriage had existed since the founding of the state —
    makes clear that history alone is not invariably an appropriate guide for
    determining the meaning and scope of this fundamental constitutional guarantee.
    The decision in Perez, although rendered by a deeply divided court, is a judicial
    opinion whose legitimacy and constitutional soundness are by now universally
    recognized.
    As discussed below, upon review of the numerous California decisions that
    have examined the underlying bases and significance of the constitutional right to
    marry (and that illuminate why this right has been recognized as one of the basic,
    inalienable civil rights guaranteed to an individual by the California Constitution),
    we conclude that, under this state’s Constitution, the constitutionally based right to
    marry properly must be understood to encompass the core set of basic substantive
    legal rights and attributes traditionally associated with marriage that 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
    process. These core substantive rights include, most fundamentally, the
    opportunity of an individual to establish — with the person with whom the
    individual has chosen to share his or her life — an officially recognized and
    protected family possessing mutual rights and responsibilities and entitled to the
    4 To avoid possible confusion, we note that the decision in Perez v. Sharp was
    reported in the unofficial regional reporter as Perez v. Lippold (1948) 198 P.2d 17,
    and judicial decisions in other states sometimes have referred to the decision by that
    title. We shall refer to the decision under its correct official title of Perez v. Sharp.
    7
    same respect and dignity accorded a union traditionally designated as marriage.
    As past cases establish, the substantive right of two adults who share a loving
    relationship to join together to establish an officially recognized family of their
    own — and, if the couple chooses, to raise children within that family —
    constitutes a vitally important attribute of the fundamental interest in liberty and
    personal autonomy that the California Constitution secures to all persons for the
    benefit of both the individual and society."

    ReplyDelete
  11. Don,

    I'm not sure your point in the current context. You link to the case of a year ago.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Frank,
    Read the question again. Then, if you still have questions, read the current ruling as well. The status of marriage as a "right" is well established.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Some of the more salient points from yesterday's decision are these:
    Proposition 8, an initiative measure approved by a majority of voters at the November 4, 2008 election, added a new section — section 7.5 — to article I of the California Constitution, providing: “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.” The measure took effect on November 5, 2008. In the present case, we address the question whether Proposition 8...
    constitutes a permissible change to the California Constitution...

    ...our task in the present proceeding is not to determine whether the provision at issue is wise or sound as a matter of policy or whether we, as individuals, believe it should be a part of the California Constitution. Regardless of our views as individuals on this
    question of policy, we recognize as judges and as a court our responsibility to confine our consideration to a determination of the constitutional validity and legal effect of the measure in question.

    the principal issue before
    us concerns the scope of the right of the people, under the provisions of the California Constitution, to change or alter the state Constitution itself through the initiative process so as to incorporate such a limitation as an explicit section of the state Constitution.

    ...[an] amendment becomes part of
    the state Constitution if it is approved by a simple majority of the voters who cast votes on the measure at a statewide election.
    By right, I think you mean constitutional right. The CA Court noted that several times in the past rights have been modified by the initiative process, including Proposition 8. So, even though the judges would personally disagree, in their professional duty to uphold the California Constitution, they are compelled to admit that gay "marriage" is not a right in California.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Frank,
    My intent was to answer D. Sirmize's question. He didn't ask about "gay" marriage; he asked about marriage "of any type". The point being that to argue that marriage isn't a right and therefore that's why the CA Supreme Court upheld Prop 8 is pretty much nonsense.

    ReplyDelete
  15. I can't blame the "homosexual lobby," whoever they are, for being bitter and even hateful. I don't believe they are right to do so, but I can't blame them. I think many within the Church would feel exactly the same way if our fundamental freedom of conscience were violated in the manner this law violates theirs. Tyranny of the majority is no better than tyranny of the minority. Just because the majority may support Prop 8 does not make it ethically valid. As important as is the principle of democratic representation in government is to the core values of the nation, the principle of inviolate rights is just as important. A majority does not legitimate the violation of those rights according to the principles of the nation.

    We can hardly blame the victims for being angry at the violation of their rights, and it is unfair to disparage them for aggressively seeking the recovery of their rights.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Don, thanks for fixing the spacing in that CASC opinion after pasting it (sarcasm there). Now that my Excedrin has kicked in after the migraine reading that gave me, I can comment on it.

    Even if, as that opinion asserts, past cases establish marriage as a constitutional right, that doesn't mean that the definition can't be refined via democratic process.

    When you talk about people's "rights being violated" (or "freedom of conscience" as Derek amusingly calls it), you're getting into some real gray area.

    See, the ban effects me too. Sure, I'm hetero, but I can't marry a man either. Is my fundamental right to marry a man being violated?

    If not, we're basing law on sexual "orientation," which itself is a no-man's-land as far as scientific analysis goes.

    I find it ironic that gay couples want so badly to co-opt a term that has deep religious meaning in most world cultures, where homosexuality is still considered deviant and sinful.

    My beef with the aggressive Left on this is that prop 8 was the culmination of a legitimate exercise of the democratic process. Like it or not, it is legit, and the CASC (amazingly) admitted that.

    The relentless gay marriage lobby attacks prop 8 supporters in the most hateful ways for exercising their democratic right, while at the same time demanding the utmost respect for theirs.

    I did not donate to the prop 8 movement last year. I didn't really even voice my opinion. Now, after the way the homosexual lobby has behaved (the hateful rants, forcing resignations, mapping out supporters' houses and publishing personal information with the intent to frighten), I'll be donating the next time the law is threatened. I'm more than willing to jump into the fight now.

    Derek, I don't question the genuineness of your feelings toward those who you feel have their freedom of conscience violated. But can't you see how that argument can go both ways?

    If I feel with conviction that gay marriage is wrong and that legalization of it will have a devastating long-term effect on the institution, would I not owe it to my conscience to oppose legalization? Does my freedom of conscience matter in this liberal world of yours?

    ReplyDelete
  17. No, D, the argument doesn't go both ways. Because if you respected civil rights and particularly freedom of conscience, you could adamantly discourage people from engaging in homosexual relationships and discourage organizations from solemnizing them in marriage--but you would not resort to forcing your religious beliefs on others through government same-sex marriage bans.

    ReplyDelete
  18. So now you discourage the forcing of one's religious beliefs on another, Derek?

    I thought it was the other way around with you. You always say you're liberal because you're a Mormon.

    Your ideals of liberal social justice stem from your religious beliefs, right? And yet you would thrust those beliefs, via democratic process, on those that disagree with you, do you not?

    ReplyDelete
  19. Social justice is about preventing people from using their personal power (typically economic) to abuse others (ie, to deprive them of life or the means to sustain life through cost externalization) for personal gain. While that is supported by the principles of the Gospel, that is not forcing religious beliefs on others. It is not an issue of religious freedom. To force others to conform to your religious beliefs on homosexuality and marriage, on the other hand, solely because you believe homosexuality is immoral, unrighteous, and icky, is absolutely an example of forcing religious beliefs on others.

    ReplyDelete
  20. You just totally dodged my question.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Explaining how protecting people from being physically and economically taken advantage of and abused by people with greater power is different from using law to enforce spiritual beliefs is dodging the question?

    ReplyDelete
  22. I shouldn't have used the term "social justice." You've got your own little definition of it, which you've used to try and turn my question around on me. I could argue that even your benevolent definition violates many peoples' "freedom of conscience," Let's set social justice aside as a distraction.

    By advocating a overnmental/social system with which at least half (if not more) of the country vehemently disagrees, in the name of your religious values, are you not forcing your religion on others?

    ReplyDelete
  23. I'm not trying to turn anything. If you cannot see the difference between law dealing with the concrete, material world of economic well being and law dealing with spiritual matters, you cannot understand the issue of freedom of conscience.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Just to be extra clear: No, because the issues involve the material welfare and justice of society rather than spiritual welfare, as in the case regarding an issue such as whether homosexuals can marry, enacting labor protection, environmental protection, and consumer protection laws are not forcing religion on others. Where my support for material welfare and justice comes from (in my case, my religion) is irrelevant when it comes to purely temporal issues.

    ReplyDelete

Thank you for commenting. If you have a Google/Blogger account, to be apprised of ongoing comment activity on this article, please click the "Subscribe" link below.