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.
...
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.
...