Perry v. Schwarzenegger: California becomes the latest battleground for Gay Marriage Rights
As a mother of four, I am already horrified at the attempts by schools to teach homosexuality as a perfectly legitimate lifestyle choice and a perfectly acceptable choice of sexual affiliation. I have invested many years teaching my kids the proper way to live and the proper values to guide their actions, their decisions, and their lives. And the schools come along and have carte blanche to use whatever teaching programs it wants to undermine my teaching and my parenting efforts. I want my children to grow up, get married, and enjoy the supreme satisfaction that comes from conceiving a child, carrying it until birth, and raising it. I want them to enjoy the miracle of life, the opportunity to reproduce part of themselves, and the opportunity to conceive a child with someone they love. It will ultimately be their choice, of course, but I don’t want my children being confused into a decision, into experimentation, into a potential life style that robs them of this opportunity as well as one that puts them at risk for some horrible diseases. Again, this goes back to my point that children need a solid and firm foundation in values (that THEY and THEIR PARENTS embrace, and NOT what the school or what society embraces) before they should be exposed to (or rather, inundated with) homosexuality. This is America, the country that was founded on morality and on a deep respect for the laws of our Creator. As such, laws are supposed to be designed to protect the good and decent members of society. John Adams said: “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” If we’ve officially abandoned our Constitution, can someone please let me know.
There absolutely should be a different scheme for heterosexuals and homosexuals as to how to classify their relationships because their coupling is simply and most fundamentally different. There should be a distinction of relationship terms (“marriage” versus “civil union” and domestic partnerships”) because the nature of the relationships themselves are different. To conclude any differently is illogical and ingenuous. It is counterintuitive.
Proposition 8 is about the majority group making its voice known on a very important issue. That is not to say that the majority ever had the right to oppress a minority group, but that is not what has happened. There has been no oppression and in fact, there has been tolerance. In most states there has been recognition of homosexual unions and recognition of their rights. Statutory pathways have been created to give them status and equal rights. And some states have given them more. There is no legal requirement to give homosexuals parity with heterosexuals when it comes to relationships because there is simply no such biological parity. Biology, a politically void science, speaks clearly on this matter. Homosexuals aren’t being discriminated. That would imply that they are “entitled” to a marriage. They are not entitled to a marriage when it is based on a fundamental biological principle that they offend.
Proposition 8 was a desperate measure by a desperate people. They took a stand to protect the traditional definition of marriage, for their society’s sake. I would propose another desperate measure.. Let’s rally for a Constitutional amendment to fix our broken judicial system. No more legislating from the bench. Let us require that judges, when they are alone in their chambers, hear voices from men like Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and Justice John Marshall… and not voices from Karl Marx, Saul Alinsky, and Liberace.
I want to end by making one word of caution. If gays and lesbians get the right to “marry,” we may see our government attempt to throw out all religious significance and religious interpretation with regards to the union. Why do I say this? Already, many gay activists (who see society moving in the direction of equal rights to marriage) are complaining that the religious custom, imposes a religious interpretation and condemnation on their relationships. They argue that marriages recognized by the State should not be forced to meet religious standards because that burdens their civil rights. They argue that religion has no place in government anyway.
I'm not writing this in any way to discriminate against homosexuals as persons with dignity and with rights, but Spock from Star Trek has taught me a very powerful lesson -- "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.... or the one."
REFERENCES and NOTES:
Lockyer v. City and County of San Francisco, 33 Cal.4th 1055 (2004)
In re Marriage Cases, 43 Cal.4th 757 [76 Cal.Rptr.3d 683, 183 P.3d 384] (2008) http://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cand/09cv2292 (evidence cited in Perry v. Schwarzenegger)
PX00011 California Voter Information Guide, California General Election, Tuesday, November 4, 2008 at PM 003365
Lawrence v Texas, 539 US 558, 571 and 582 (2003) [The Court struck down sodomy laws. Scalia, J, dissenting: “If moral disapprobation of homosexual conduct is ‘no legitimate state interest’ for purposes of proscribing that conduct * * * what justification could there possibly be for denying the benefits of marriage to homosexual couples exercising ‘the liberty protected by the Constitution’? Surely not the encouragement of procreation, since the sterile and the elderly are allowed to marry.” “Tradition alone cannot support legislation.”];
Everson v Board of Education of Ewing Township, 330 US 1, 15 (1947)
Washington v Glucksberg, 521 US 702, 719-720 (1997). [When legislation burdens the exercise of a right that is deemed to be fundamental, the government must show that the intrusion withstands strict scrutiny. (ie, the toughest degree of scrutiny)]
Lewis v. Harris, 188 N.J. 415; 908 A.2d 196 (N.J. 2006) [concluded that the right to marriage is NOT a fundamental right as afforded by the NJ state constitution (which mirrors the rights in the US Constitution) ]
Turner v Safely, 482 US 78, 95 (1987) [(“The decision to marry is a fundamental right” and marriage is an “expression of emotional support and public commitment.”]
Zablocki v Redhail, 434 US 374, 384 (1978) [“The right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals”]
Cleveland Board of Education v LaFleur, 414 US 632, 639-40 (1974) [“This Court has long recognized that freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment”]
Loving v Virginia, 388 US 1, 12 (1967) [“The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.”]
Griswold v Connecticut, 381 US 479, 486 (1965) [“Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred. It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects. Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions”]
West Virginia State Board of Education v Barnette, 319 US 624, 638 (1943)
Romer v. Evans, 517 US 620, 633 and 635 (1996) [“Laws of the kind now before us raise the inevitable inference that the disadvantage imposed is born of animosity toward the class of persons affected.”].
Williams v Illinois, 399 US 235, 239 (1970) (Equal Protection case involving criminal law. State tried to incarcerate defendant longer because as an indigent, he couldn’t pay attorney fees so the state tried to make him work off the costs, in jail. Held: State can’t extend incarceration based on the status of the defendant (indigency)]
US Dept. of Agriculture v. Moreno, 413 US 528 at 534 (1973)
Palmore v Sidoti, 466 US 429, 433 (1984) [“The Constitution cannot control private biases but neither can it tolerate them.”]
Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa v Casey, 505 US 833, 850, (1992) [“Moral disapproval, without any other asserted state interest,” has never been a rational basis for legislation]
Goodridge v. Department of Public Health, 798 N.E.2d 940 (Mass. 2003) [The Massachusetts Supreme Court held that the state may not "deny the protections, benefits and obligations conferred by civil marriage to two individuals of the same sex who wish to marry." Chief Justice Margaret Marshall, writing for the majority, wrote that the state's constitution "affirms the dignity and equality of all individuals. It forbids the creation of second-class citizens," the state had no "constitutionally adequate reason for denying marriage to same-sex couples," and "The right to marry is not a privilege conferred by the State, but a fundamental right that is protected against unwarranted State interference." On the legal aspect, instead of creating a new fundamental right to marry, or more accurately the right to choose to marry, the Court held that the State does not have a rational basis to deny same-sex couples marriage on the ground of due process and equal protection.]
http://old.nationalreview.com/document/bush200402250934.asp (Transcript of President Bush’s Speech on February 25, 2004, endorsing a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between one man and one woman)
http://www.actforyouth.net/documents/may02factsheetadolbraindev.pdf (Cornell University Study on Adolescent Brain Development)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/bookshelf/br.fcgi?book=sgdrinkt&part=A91013 (Publications and Reports of the Surgeon General)
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2004/05/A-Defining-Moment-Marriage-the-Courts-and-the-Constitution (Matthew Spalding, PhD. “A Defining Moment: Marriage, the Courts, & the Constitution,” The Heritage Foundation, May 17, 2004)
http://www.reflector.com/opinion/cal-thomas-muslim-fanatics-are-right-about-whats-wrong-america-44108 (Cal Thomas, “Muslim Fanatics are Right About What's Wrong With America,” Daily Reflector, Aug. 11, 2010)
http://tech.mit.edu/V124/N5/kolasinski.5c.html (Adam Kolasinsky, ”The Secular Case Against Gay Marriage,” MIT University, Feb. 17, 2004)
http://www.lewrockwell.com/williams-w/w-williams45.html (Walter Williams, “Is Profiling Racist?”, (or “Not Every Choice Based on Race Represents Racism”) posted on LewRockwell.com and in the Daily Reflector, Aug. 5, 2010)
http://www.sfgate.com/cgibin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/08/04/MNQS1EOR3D.DTL#ixzz0vt3wahAG
Note - The statewide vote on Proposition 8 was 52% YES and 47% NO.
February 25, 2004, 9:34 a.m. [ http://old.nationalreview.com/document/bush200402250934.asp ]
Defending Marriage
( This is the text of a speech delivered by President George W. Bush on Feb. 24, 2004, in the Roosevelt Room of the White House, in defense of a Constitutional amendment to define marriage as between a man and a woman).
Good morning. Eight years ago, Congress passed, and President Clinton signed, the Defense of Marriage Act, which defined marriage for purposes of federal law as the legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife.
The Act passed the House of Representatives by a vote of 342 to 67, and the Senate by a vote of 85 to 14. Those congressional votes and the passage of similar defensive marriage laws in 38 states express an overwhelming consensus in our country for protecting the institution of marriage.
In recent months, however, some activist judges and local officials have made an aggressive attempt to redefine marriage. In Massachusetts, four judges on the highest court have indicated they will order the issuance of marriage licenses to applicants of the same gender in May of this year. In San Francisco, city officials have issued thousands of marriage licenses to people of the same gender, contrary to the California family code. That code, which clearly defines marriage as the union of a man and a woman, was approved overwhelmingly by the voters of California. A county in New Mexico has also issued marriage licenses to applicants of the same gender. And unless action is taken, we can expect more arbitrary court decisions, more litigation, more defiance of the law by local officials, all of which adds to uncertainty.
After more than two centuries of American jurisprudence, and millennia of human experience, a few judges and local authorities are presuming to change the most fundamental institution of civilization. Their actions have created confusion on an issue that requires clarity.
On a matter of such importance, the voice of the people must be heard. Activist courts have left the people with one recourse. If we are to prevent the meaning of marriage from being changed forever, our nation must enact a constitutional amendment to protect marriage in America. Decisive and democratic action is needed, because attempts to redefine marriage in a single state or city could have serious consequences throughout the country.
The Constitution says that full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts and records and judicial proceedings of every other state. Those who want to change the meaning of marriage will claim that this provision requires all states and cities to recognize same-sex marriages performed anywhere in America. Congress attempted to address this problem in the Defense of Marriage Act, by declaring that no state must accept another state's definition of marriage. My administration will vigorously defend this act of Congress.
Yet there is no assurance that the Defense of Marriage Act will not, itself, be struck down by activist courts. In that event, every state would be forced to recognize any relationship that judges in Boston or officials in San Francisco choose to call a marriage. Furthermore, even if the Defense of Marriage Act is upheld, the law does not protect marriage within any state or city.
For all these reasons, the Defense of Marriage requires a constitutional amendment. An amendment to the Constitution is never to be undertaken lightly. The amendment process has addressed many serious matters of national concern. And the preservation of marriage rises to this level of national importance. The union of a man and woman is the most enduring human institution, honoring — honored and encouraged in all cultures and by every religious faith. Ages of experience have taught humanity that the commitment of a husband and wife to love and to serve one another promotes the welfare of children and the stability of society.
Marriage cannot be severed from its cultural, religious and natural roots without weakening the good influence of society. Government, by recognizing and protecting marriage, serves the interests of all. Today I call upon the Congress to promptly pass, and to send to the states for ratification, an amendment to our Constitution defining and protecting marriage as a union of man and woman as husband and wife. The amendment should fully protect marriage, while leaving the state legislatures free to make their own choices in defining legal arrangements other than marriage.
America is a free society, which limits the role of government in the lives of our citizens. This commitment of freedom, however, does not require the redefinition of one of our most basic social institutions. Our government should respect every person, and protect the institution of marriage. There is no contradiction between these responsibilities. We should also conduct this difficult debate in a manner worthy of our country, without bitterness or anger.
In all that lies ahead, let us match strong convictions with kindness and goodwill and decency.
Thank you very much.