Returning to the California Supreme Court’s evisceration of the definition of marriage, the California Constitution, and the will of the voters of California:

Make no mistake, this was not a decision compelled by past precedents or an example of Justices simply following the logic and dictates of the California Constitution. This was an exercise of raw judicial power. Four justices in the State of California did not like the current state of the law regarding marriage and decided to change it. I am quite certain they believe they are doing the “right thing.” They believe that justice has been served.

Most tyrants do.

They conceded that “[f]rom the beginning of California statehood, the legal institution of marriage has been understood to refer to a relationship between a man and a woman.” Indeed, if we are to talk about a “right of marriage,” that is what we are talking about. Indeed, this “traditional” understanding of marriage had been recently reaffirmed by a 2000 initiative that was passed by a 61.4 percent majority.

But, the notion that a marriage should be defined by a relationship between a man and a woman was just too much for the Court to allow. Citing California’s alternate legal “civil union” status that was set up just a few years ago as an alternative to marriage, the Justices found that there was no rational basis upon which to distinguish these civil unions from marriages. Wasn’t just a few years ago, that the proponents for civil unions were arguing that this would be enough to placate supporters of gay marriage? Obviously, that’s been revealed to be false.

Fundamental to the court’s “reasoning” was the past precedent of holding inter-racial bans on the marriage to be unconstitutional. So too, the court could find no basis to distinguish an inter-racial ban from a sexual orientation ban on marriage.

Hmmm . . . let’s see. Can you spot the difference? Race is incidental to marriage. It is irrelevant. The differences in sex DEFINE marriage. Indeed, marriage JUST IS THAT – a relationship between a man and woman. I can no more have a marriage with a man, than I could with my car, my house, my dog, my child, or the Dallas Cowboy Cheerleaders.

Yet, in our inexhaustible supply of hubris, that is exactly what California has now done. Make no mistake, the others statuses are coming. Once we detach marriage from its traditional hinges, it will now mean all things to all people. Polygamy? Sure! Incest? What rational basis is there to distinguish one’s right to marry his daughter, sister, or mother? Once marriage means all things to all people, as it now does. It means nothing.

And in the master’s chambers,
They gathered for the feast
They stab it with their steely knives,
But they just can’t kill the beast

Advertisements