PDA

View Full Version : Excellent analysis of PRCalif Supremes' same-sex "marriage" decision: Slippery-slope



Little-Acorn
05-16-2008, 10:06 AM
It's a classic example of the "slippery slope" leftists so often use to impose their agenda on society, in areas as diverse as gun control, abortion, taxes, and now same-sex "marriage".

You may recall that one of the arguments against changing the definition of marriage, is that gays can already form "civil unions" in California and other states, giving them the full privileges of marriage. It's been pointed out repeatedly that same-sex couples demands for "equal rights" ring hollow, since they already have fully equal rights.

Well, guess what. Yesterday California's state Supreme Court used this as a reason why the definition of marriage SHOULD be changed to include same-sex couples.... rather than a reason why it shouldn't.

Calif law clearly states that a marriage is only between a man and a woman. A ballot initiative to that effect was passed in 2000, that the legislature is forbidden to change or repeal. But in an effort to appease militant gay advocates, the legislature did pass laws forming "civil unions" and "domestic partnerships" that give same-sex couples all the privileges of married couples.

Now some of the Calif Supremes have decided that this creates a "separate but equal" status for same-sex couples... despite the fact that it does nothing of the kind. And they further decided that rather than invalidating the "lower" law pased by the legislature, we must invalidate the higher law passed by ballot initiative. Somehow they managed to ignore the fact that in California, when a legislated law conflicts with a ballot-initiative law, the legislated law must yield. In other words, ballot initiatives can overrule the legislature, but the legislature cannot overrule a ballot initiative.

The marriage-is-man-and-woman law was a ballot initiative, while the civil-union laws were passed by the legislature. So even if there was a conflict as the Supremes seem to believe, the resolution must be that the marriage-is-man-and-woman law holds, while offending parts of the civil-union laws must be struck down. Why the Calif Supremes chose the other course, has not been explained.

Let this be a lesson to any state that seeks to appease the militant gay advocates by passing civil-union laws. They will thank you by using your concession to club you into complete capitulation to their agenda, via the courts. As the author points out here, any states with such civil-union laws on the books, had better repeal them in a hurry. Otherwise you'll soon find the gay advocates at your doorstep, using those very laws to force you to change the fundamental definition of marriage - which may have been exactly what you were trying to avoid in passing those laws in the first place.

Sometimes it's just not wise to take in a snake, care for it, and nurture it. As the ones in California just showed, it will probably bite you anyway despite your best intentions, because it is still a snake.

------------------------------------

http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/gay_marriage/2008/05/16/96616.html

Sen. Istook: Pretzel Logic Behind Gay Marriage

Friday, May 16, 2008 9:49 AM
by Ernest Istook

The law was just a plaything to California’s Supreme Court, and the justices twisted logic into a pretzel as they legalized same-sex marriage by judicial fiat.

The court also exposed the danger created by wishy-washy lawmakers who push “civil unions” or “domestic partnerships” as a supposed middle-ground compromise. That actually is a deadly policy of appeasement. It was the very existence of such laws that the justices used to justify this outrageous decision.

By trying to appease homosexual rights activists, those who have refused to stand up for traditional marriage helped to create this court ruling. They are the Neville Chamberlains of the cultural wars.

In essence, California’s highest court yesterday decreed that society cannot have a “separate but equal” matchmaking plan for same-sex couples.

The moment California or any other state adopts civil unions, this decision makes clear, it’s on the slippery slope that makes same-sex marriage inevitable.

This ruling also further disenfranchises citizens and voters. The court not only usurped legislative power, it ignored the clear will of the 61 percent of California voters who in 2000 placed into law this language: “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.”

A lone justice, Marvin Baxter, wrote a clear dissent describing how radical the ruling is and what he called the “legal jujitsu” used by the majority to rationalize its decision. Two other justices dissented, but not as forcefully as Justice Baxter.

...

mundame
05-16-2008, 10:11 AM
Civil unions were a bad idea because appeasement never, never, never, never works.

Whoever it is, they take the appeasement and agitate or arm for more.



I'm a family survivor of one of the early Reno quickie divorces in the '40s.

These Nevada divorces spread rapidly around the country within a couple decades and now every state is doing "no-fault" and marriage is a broken institution ---------------- well, except for homosexuals marrying each other, of course.

That's what is going on now with this silly homosexual marriage thing. It will also spread rapidly around the country.

Next stop, legalized polygamy. I don't see any way to stop all this, with it's serious disadvantage to women and children.

dread
05-16-2008, 10:21 AM
I dont know if legalized polygamy will be the next step. It could very well be NAMBLA who wins the honors or maybe even people who "love" their animals so much that get to marry them.

Little-Acorn
05-16-2008, 10:36 AM
marriage is a broken institution ---------------- well, except for homosexuals marrying each other, of course.


Statistics from Massachusetts show that same-sex couples who "marry", divorce at even higher rates than real marriages.

Little-Acorn
05-16-2008, 10:39 AM
I dont know if legalized polygamy will be the next step. It could very well be NAMBLA who wins the honors or maybe even people who "love" their animals so much that get to marry them.

Well, there are obvious reasons why polygamy shouldn't be legal, and VERY obvious reasons why humans can't "marry" animals.

That said, the CA Supreme Court has now thrown such bizzare arrangement open to possible acceptance. After all, it was obvious for a long time why men couldn't Marry men, and women couldn't marry women. If California chooses to ignore those reasons, who says they won't ignore equally-obvious reasons for human-animal marriage?

mundame
05-16-2008, 10:46 AM
I dont know if legalized polygamy will be the next step. It could very well be NAMBLA who wins the honors or maybe even people who "love" their animals so much that get to marry them.


Sure. The widow who just WUVS her wittle Foofoo dog................

I can see it coming.

Animal rights activists marrying lab chimps to keep them from being killed or experimented on.

mundame
05-16-2008, 10:50 AM
VERY obvious reasons why humans can't "marry" animals.



I don't think the reasons are that obvious once the government sanctions men marrying men!! After that, why not marry people to animals? Doesn't make any less sense, does it?


The best argument I ever heard against that happening -- people marrying their pets -- is that animals cannot sign contracts or make legal contracts, and marriage is a contract.

That would seem to apply to children, too, but Mormon and Muslim polygamists "marry" young children constantly. They are not interested in the niceties of law: they are interested in swooping up all the females around and locking them into a relationship where they have complete sexual and reproductive access to them and no one else does.

So I'm not impressed that brother--sister and animal marriages won't soon be our norm.

And it won't be PC to criticize.............................

Hagbard Celine
05-16-2008, 10:56 AM
First, could you please link to the California statute that defines marriage and second, you can't twist logic. That's a fantasy clung to by people who get mad when the outcome of something ends up being the opposite of what they wanted. The best thing they can do is to go outside where no one can hear them and have a long, hard cry.

Little-Acorn
05-16-2008, 02:14 PM
I can see it coming.

Animal rights activists marrying lab chimps to keep them from being killed or experimented on.

Interesting point. The animal-"rights" activists are already insisting that animals must have the same rights as people.

They would LOVE this Calif Supreme Court. It's tailor-made to advance their agenda. And now they have a clear blueprint for doing so.

Yurt
05-16-2008, 02:20 PM
the california statute did violate equal protection of the law. now if the state amends the constitution, fine. the supreme court has the power to rule over a statute and the CA const does not say the right to marriage is only for man and woman.

glockmail
05-16-2008, 03:39 PM
..... And they further decided that rather than invalidating the "lower" law pased by the legislature, we must invalidate the higher law passed by ballot initiative. Somehow they managed to ignore the fact that in California, when a legislated law conflicts with a ballot-initiative law, the legislated law must yield. In other words, ballot initiatives can overrule the legislature, but the legislature cannot overrule a ballot initiative.

...

Does this set them up for a suit by the People of CA at the Federal SC level?

Yurt
05-16-2008, 04:29 PM
Does this set them up for a suit by the People of CA at the Federal SC level?

pretty much. when the const is amended, watch for this to go federal. i think 30 some states have a const amendment, this is going federal very soon. if the CA const said marriage is defined as btwn man/woman, the ca supreme court would not have ruled the way they did, they could not have. that being, the liberal court gave homosexuals major ammunition for taking this federal.

mundame
05-16-2008, 04:31 PM
pretty much. when the const is amended, watch for this to go federal. i think 30 some states have a const amendment, this is going federal very soon. if the CA const said marriage is defined as btwn man/woman, the ca supreme court would not have ruled the way they did, they could not have. that being, the liberal court gave homosexuals major ammunition for taking this federal.


If the Ninth Circuit federal court hears it, they will approve it; they approve everything leftist out there.

Little-Acorn
05-16-2008, 04:38 PM
Does this set them up for a suit by the People of CA at the Federal SC level?

Not if it involves only issues internal to the state of Calif.

Only if a case involves Federal issues, such as a violation of the "equal protection" clause of the 14th amendment, would the USSC have standing to judge the case.

So far, no such violation has been shown. It has only been implied.

But even an implication, could be enough. If the gay advocates CLAIM their equal rights have been violated, the USSC could hear the case... even if they wind up laughing the advocates out of court when they eventually heard the meager evidence and saw that no violation actually occurred.

It wouldn't be the first time the USSC has laughed the plaintiffs out of court for bringing a ridiculous case. See US v. Lopez, 1995.

Yurt
05-16-2008, 04:46 PM
Not if it involves only issues internal to the state of Calif.

Only if a case involves Federal issues, such as a violation of the "equal protection" clause of the 14th amendment, would the USSC have standing to judge the case.

So far, no such violation has been shown. It has only been implied.

But even an implication, could be enough. If the gay advocates CLAIM their equal rights have been violated, the USSC could hear the case... even if they wind up laughing the advocates out of court when they eventually heard the meager evidence and saw that no violation actually occurred.

It wouldn't be the first time the USSC has laughed the plaintiffs out of court for bringing a ridiculous case. See US v. Lopez, 1995.

concurring opinion page 4 discusses the 14th...this case has set the grand stage for the big court...the gay advocates will not have an easy time though:

88-90

In the three decades that have elapsed since our decision in Gay Law
Students, supra, 24 Cal.3d 458, judicial decisions in a variety of contexts similarly
have concluded that statutes, policies, or public or private actions that treat the
genders equally but that accord differential treatment either to a couple based upon
whether they are persons of the same sex or of opposite sexes, or to a person based
upon whether he or she generally is sexually attracted to persons of the same
gender rather than the opposite gender, do not constitute instances of sex
discrimination (either within the meaning of statutory prohibitions on sex
8 9
discrimination or for purposes of the equal protection clauses or equal rights
amendments contained within the federal and various state constitutions), but
rather are more properly viewed as instances of differential treatment on the basis
of sexual orientation and accordingly should be evaluated on that ground. (See,
e.g., Medina v. Income Support Div., New Mexico (10th Cir. 2005) 413 F.3d 1131,
1134-1135 [workplace harassment]; DeSantis v. Pacific Tel. & Tel. Co. (9th Cir.
1979) 608 F.2d 327, 329-330 [termination of employment]; Commonwealth v.
Wasson (Ky. 1992) 842 S.W.2d 487, 499-502 [statute prohibiting “deviate sexual
intercourse with another person of the same sex”]; State v. Walsh (Mo. 1986) 713
S.W.2d 508, 510-511 [same]; Conaway v. Deane, supra, 932 A.2d 571, 585-602,
605-616 [marriage]; Lewis v. Harris, supra, 908 A.2d 196, 212-215 [marriage];
Hernandez v. Robles, supra, 855 N.E.2d 1, 10-11 [marriage]; Baker v. State,
supra, 744 A.2d 864, 880, fn. 13 [marriage]; Andersen v. King County, supra, 138
P.3d 963, 974-976, 988-990 (lead opn. of Madsen, J.); id. at pp. 997-998, 1010
(conc. opn. of Johnson (J.M.), J.) [marriage]; In re Kandu (Bankr. W.D.Wn. 2004)
315 B.R. 123, 142-144 [marriage]; accord, Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore
Services, Inc. (1998) 523 U.S. 75, 80 [in determining whether same-sex
harassment in the workplace constitutes “discrimination because of sex” within the
meaning of title VII, “ ‘[t]he critical issue . . . is whether members of one sex are
exposed to disadvantageous terms or conditions of employment to which members
of the other sex are not exposed’ ”]; Lawrence v. Texas, supra, 539 U.S. 558, 581
(conc. opn. of O’Connor, J.) [statute that makes sodomy a crime only if a person
engages in such conduct “ ‘with another individual of the same sex’ ” treats
persons differently on the basis of their “same-sex sexual orientation” and, for
equal protection purposes, is appropriately analyzed on that ground]; see also
C-249/96, Grant v. South-West Trains (Eur. Ct. of Justice) 1998 E.C.R. I-261,
pars. 24-28, 37-47 [“discrimination on the basis of sex” prohibited by art. 119 of
9 0
the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community “does not cover
discrimination based on sexual orientation”].)57

FN57 As illustrated by the numerous authorities cited in the text, virtually all of the
decisions that have addressed this issue have rejected plaintiffs’ contention that a
statute that treats same-sex couples differently from opposite-sex couples
constitutes sex discrimination, although we are aware that one state court decision
and a number of separate concurring and/or dissenting opinions filed in other recent
state court marriage decisions have found such differential treatment to constitute
sex discrimination for purposes of the equal protection clause or equal rights
amendment contained in the applicable state constitution.