Make no mistake, the California ruling overturning a ban on homosexual marriage is not about the state forbidding freedom of association between homosexuals or, forbidding same sex marriage. Homosexuals have the inalienable right to freely associate together and create their own relationships as they please and call these relationships whatever they want to call them. This right has not been violated in California and no one can truthfully question that right. But the argument here is one involving the very structure of the State government, the federally protected right to a “Republican Form of Government“, and, the setting of public policy ___ a process in our constitutional system which commands that the people’s elected representatives, and only its legislative branch of government, decides upon and sets public policy.


The recognition of “marriage” and what constitutes a “marriage” comes within the powers of the legislature, and setting public policy is usually set to further and advance the State’s general welfare and its interests as reflected through the people’s elected legislature. Although the State may not forbid homosexuals to engage in relationship they call a “marriage”, and may not forbid such relationships because of the inalienable right of people to freely associate with each other as they please, the State is not required to put its stamp of approval upon the countless kinds of relationships people may engage in if the legislature does not feel they are within the best interests of the state to do so.


The very purpose of a State’s Legislature, in a "Republican Form of Government" guaranteed by Art. 4, Sect. 4, is to discriminate in the setting of public policy so as to promote the best interests of the state, so long as in doing so the inalienable rights of the people are not subjugated e.g. forbidding two homosexuals to create a relationship which they believe is a “marriage”.


The people of every State in our union have a genuine interest and concern in encouraging procreation and child-rearing within the setting of a traditional marriage composed of one mommy and one daddy. And the State in recognizing such marriages is rationally based in promoting the State’s best interests, and even if it isn't, that is for the Legislature to decide in a Republican Form of Government!


Bottom line is, the California Court engaged in judicial tyranny and subjugated the guarantee to a Republican Form of Government by assuming and exercising the power of the Legislature, setting public policy in accordance with its own personal predilections, and, mandating state recognized homosexual marriages as furthering the best interests of the state. The court has done for the people what the people’s elected legislature has not willing done in the name of the people.


JWK


Those who reject abiding by the intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was agree to, as those intentions and beliefs may be documented from historical records, wish to remove the anchor and rudder of our constitutional system so they may then be free to “interpret” the Constitution to mean whatever they wish it to mean.

Wrong.

The court did exactly what it is supposed to do. It interpreted a narrow legal question brought before it. Namely, did the two statutes in question conflict with the CA Constitution. It found that they did.

The court did not jump in and legislate. It waited until cases brought by CA residents who felt that their rights had been violated had worked their way through the lower courts. It did not create a new definition of marriage. It simply said that the definition of marriage which the legislature attempted to create in the two laws in question did not withstand constitutional scrutiny.

__________________

I'm beginning to wonder whether we haven't lost our understanding of why the Framers included the antidemocratic features they did in the Constitution.

It seems to me that we have lost all understanding of what the authors of The Federalist meant when they spoke of "the tyranny of the majority".

Our understanding of what are fundamental rights has changed with time, and one of the reasons the courts exist is to protect the rights of minorities, even unpopular ones.

As far as the right being debated here is concerned, I'm afraid the traditionalists, without knowing it, lost the argument the moment the state began:
--sanctioning marriages separate from the church
--sanctioning them regardless of the intent of the partners to procreate
--allowing married couples to divorce even after giving birth to children (which is what marriage is designed to protect, right?)

Further complicating things is the fact that many same-sex couples wish to raise children -- whether children by previous marriages, children by adoption, or children conceived by other means (including ordinary heterosexual intercourse). If we follow Bill O'Reilly's line of argument -- "The best possible environment for a child is with a mother and father, but it's better that children have two loving parents than one bad one (or two bad ones) or none at all" -- then why should the institution of civil (as opposed to religious) marriage not adapt to reflect these changed circumstances?

If we have (more or less) reached the conclusion that homosexual sex acts no longer disqualify those who perform them from enjoying the same rights, privileges and liberties all other Americans enjoy, why should they be barred from willingly assuming the responsibilities all other Americans do? That should go with the package rather than be subject to popular whim -- and I'll bet that's the logic the four justices in the majority on the California Supreme Court (most appointed by Republican governors, I should point out) followed in reaching their conclusion.

__________________
Sandy Smith, Exile on Market Street, Philadelphia
"Many a small thing has been made large by the right kind of advertising." --Mark Twain, A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court

problem is the judges, usurped democracy. The voters wishes do not matter, whether its Proposition 187 or the Gay Marriage Ban, its no longer 'We the People,' it is now, 'They the Judges' who make the decisions.

__________________
Don't Taze Me Bro!![/size]


I love how some enlightened liberals have no problem censoring those with whom they disagree.

G.K. Chesterton quotes:

“I want a Church that moves the world, not one that moves with it.”

“I often find myself in hot water but that way I stay clean.”

“Only a live fish can swim against the current, the dead go with it.”

"Take away the supernatural and what remains is the unnatural"

"Be careful not to be so open-minded that your brains fall out."

That whooshing sound you heard was my point sailing right over your head.

__________________
Sandy Smith, Exile on Market Street, Philadelphia
"Many a small thing has been made large by the right kind of advertising." --Mark Twain, A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court

First the Gays & Lesbians bring down the World Trade Ctr. now the target is the whole government. Why hasn't Congress declared war? Bring the Marines back home to take care of this threat. Of course some of the Marines are Gays and Lesbians. So what are they fighting for?

__________________

All I said was that intellectuals are like the Mafia, they only kill their own.

Woody Allen
Stardust Memories

didnt see your point or hear the whooshing sound. It seemed you were mostly focusing on how legislaters and the middle ground created this mess....even though it has.

__________________
Don't Taze Me Bro!![/size]


I love how some enlightened liberals have no problem censoring those with whom they disagree.

G.K. Chesterton quotes:

“I want a Church that moves the world, not one that moves with it.”

“I often find myself in hot water but that way I stay clean.”

“Only a live fish can swim against the current, the dead go with it.”

"Take away the supernatural and what remains is the unnatural"

"Be careful not to be so open-minded that your brains fall out."

When I went into the details, yeah, I was, but my opening sentence was:

(emphasis added)

The courts exist in part precisely to thwart "the will of the people" where that will would trample on fundamental rights. Rhetoric about how the courts ignore the popular will miss that basic point and call the legitimacy of the judiciary and its role in a republican system into question.

That is not to say that judges either should always ignore the popular will nor that they always make decisions in line with the need to protect fundamental rights, nor does it say that we all agree on what those fundamental rights are. I happen to believe that once marriage became first a civil ceremony divorced from religious context, then a status not necessarily bound up with the raising of children (many of the legal benefits conferred on married partners apply not because of the presence of children but merely because the partners have committed themselves in this manner), it became a right more in line with the other fundamental rights on which I believe all of us agree. You, I presume, differ -- and I will even allow that some court decisions (Roe v. Wade most notoriously), while perhaps right from a philosophical perspective, were bad ones because they cut off public debate that would have ultimately produced a more durable consensus not all that far from what the supporters of the decision sought. The fact that many liberals feel compelled to oppose gay marriage but support "civil unions" indicates that the argument is already headed in my preferred direction, and to the extent that this is true, we may come to regret this decision if we cannot counter the likely backlash.

But given my view on what the fundamental right is at stake here, I cannot help but agree with the decision reached on principle, and only meant to note with my opening sentence that just because it ran counter to the expressed sentiment of the majority does not make either it or the judges who reached it wrong on their face.

__________________
Sandy Smith, Exile on Market Street, Philadelphia
"Many a small thing has been made large by the right kind of advertising." --Mark Twain, A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court

How the California supreme court interprets its own constitution and statutes has nothing to do with the united states constitution at all. I'm not sure why conservatives outside of California are getting so upset about all of this. I quess I could understand the outrage if it was the US Supreme Court.

The truth is, the Court set public policy!


The Court asserted there was no compelling state interest in differentiation between same sex “marriage“ and marriages of opposite sex. But that decision is to be determined by the legislature, that branch of government elected by the people and responsible for setting public policy and determining what is and what is not serving a compelling state interest. The Court hijacked the Legislature’s delegated powers in setting public policy and undermined the very fabric of a Republican Form of Government, guaranteed to every State in the Union by Article 4, Section 4.


And, just for the record, a very strong case has been made over many, many years of debate regarding the institution of marriage as being a unique situation and the basic building block of society, e.g., see Moran v. Moran, 188 Ariz. 139, 144, 933 P. 2d 1207, 1212 (App. 1996) (describing marriage as relationship with which State vitally concerned “for it is the foundation of the family and of society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress”) (citation omitted); Soos v. Super. Ct., 182 Ariz. 470, 474 897 P.3d 1356, 1360 (App. 1994) (“Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race.”) (quoting Skinner, 316 U.S. at 541); see also Jackson v. Tangreen, 199 Ariz. 306, 313, Par 27, 18 P.3d 100, 107 (App. 2000) (recognizing State has legitimate interest in “promoting healthy family relationships that enable children to become well-adjusted, responsible adults”) (citation omitted).



JWK