Tuesday, May 26, 2009

California Upholds Prop. 8


"Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." ~ California Supreme Court 5/26/2009

In a 6 to 1 decision (Justice Carlos R. Moreno concurring and dissenting) the California Supreme Court has issued it's opinion holding that the California Constitutional Amendment ban on gay marriage otherwise known as Prop. 8 as voted and approved by 52% of voting citizens, is valid and should remain in tact.

In a conflicted note, the court unanimously held that the 18,000 gay marriages placed in force while it was legal should continue to be recognized as such but that no new marriages will be recognized as gay marriage is NOT the law of the land any longer.

I take the time to say thank you to the 52% of voting California citizens. You, by virtue of your actions, could have saved this country in many ways! We also must thank the Mormon church for footing a significant part of the bill. Yes, Christians we owe the Mormons on this one.
The battlefront is laid out. I had earlier said that we should just be in retention mode and retain what we can due to the fact that this immorality is proliferating itself abundantly. The citizens of California have renewed my hope that the liberal and left-wing agenda that we are observing will be met with overwhelming resistance.
The facts are that Iowa, Connecticut, Vermont and Maine have all legalized gay marriage, and lawmakers in New York, New Jersey and New Hampshire are considering bills of their own. My own state Illinois is on the docket to review civil unions possibly endorsing such as the law of the land. We have much praying to do.
The Pitfalls:
The title "marriage" seems to be what is being fought for rather than the substance of marriage. Here are words from the decision itself:
  • "Analyzing the scope of Proposition 8, the majority opinion explains that, contrary to petitioners’ assertions, the initiative measure does not “entirely repeal” or “abrogate” the aspect of a same-sex couple’s state constitutional right of privacy and due process discussed in the majority opinion in the Marriage Cases — namely, the constitutional right to “choose one’s life partner and enter with that person into a committed, officially recognized, and protected family relationship that enjoys all of the constitutionally based incidents of marriage” — nor does it “fundamentally alter” the substance of state constitutional equal protection principles recognized in that opinion. Instead, it carves out a limited exception to these constitutional rights by reserving the official designation of the term “marriage” for the union of opposite-sex couples, but leaves undisturbed all of the other aspects of a same-sex couple’s constitutional right to establish an officially recognized and protected family relationship and to the equal protection of the laws.~ Judicial Council Of California Administrative News Release # 29 5/26/2009
California's Supreme Court seems to yet suffer from a split personality regarding the issue. If they weren't going to be under scrutiny in this case i wonder would their decisions have been different. For example, Justice Kennard issued her own Concurring Opinion basically giving guidance on how to get gay marriage approved in the future:
  • "[a]lthough the people through the initiative power may not change the court’s interpretation of language in the state Constitution, they may change the constitutional language itself, and thereby enlarge or reduce the personal rights that the state Constitution as so amended will thereafter guarantee and protect." ~ Justice Kennard California Supreme Ct. 5/26/2009

Justice Wardegar also issued her feelings that the differences between marriages and domestic partnerships should be eliminated in the future. In her Concurring decision she states:

  • "all three branches of state government continue to have the duty, within their respective spheres of operation, today as before the passage of Proposition 8, to eliminate the remaining important differences between marriage and domestic partnership, both in substance and perception." ~ Justice Wardegar California Supreme Ct. 5/26/2009

And of course Justice Moreno in his Concurring and Dissenting opinion just doesn't see how any of the justices would side with the majority against the minority:

  • "Proposition 8 represents an unprecedented instance of a majority of voters altering the meaning of the equal protection clause by modifying the California Constitution to require deprivation of a fundamental right on the basis of a suspect classification." He states that "[t]he rule the majority crafts today not only allows same-sex couples to be stripped of the right to marry that this court recognized in the Marriage Cases, it places at risk the state constitutional rights of all disfavored minorities" and "weakens the status of our state Constitution as a bulwark of fundamental rights for minorities protected from the will of the majority." ~ Justice Moreno California Supreme Ct. 5/26/2009

As you can tell this issue is not over and as we watch news reports of the next few days we can only pray for the safety of all citizens, churchgoing and otherwise who reject the immorality of homosexual sin and right to marry.

Ephes 6:10 ~ "Finally My brethern, be strong in the Lord, and in the Power of his might."

Blessed!

2 comments:

  1. While the court has upheld the peoples’ wish – in this instance, their decision is written so loosely that it reveals an obvious bias in favor of gay rights supporters.

    i.e, “…the initiative measure does not “entirely repeal” or “abrogate” the aspect of a same-sex couple’s state constitutional right of privacy and due process discussed in the majority opinion in the Marriage Cases — namely, the constitutional right to “choose one’s life partner and enter with that person into a committed, officially recognized, and protected family relationship that enjoys all of the constitutionally based incidents of marriage” — nor does it “fundamentally alter” the substance of state constitutional equal protection principles recognized in that opinion.”

    In other words, they can keep all the benefits they already receive, e.g. adoption rights, partner medical and other economic benefits, etc. People walk so "softly" around this issue for fear of offending gays, with so little concern for the feelings of opponents and victims of this horrible leaning.

    Although the state’s liberal economists like to tout the “benefits” to the state’s budget of allowing same-sex marriage, the "elephant" in the room that no one wants to talk about is the “negative” economic impact the state may already be experiencing as the result of businesses being forced to PAY benefits for same sex partners. So with or without the benefit of being able to use the word "marriage", they are still being compensated to the hilt! Now, the great governor of California is begging for a bail-out and considering such grand and "innovative" solutions to the State's economic woes as legalizing drugs – for goodness sakes! I can’t help but wonder how much money the state could save by stopping same sex benefits. God help us all! God will certainly have the last word in the matter.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Concerned Saint,

    You're absolutely correct. they cut this as close as they could and gave advice to the activists on how they can get their agenda passed in the future.

    They seemed to indicate that the activists should try constitutional amendment next time as opposed to courts...they know they're being looked at and under scruitiny. In short it was a political and social compromise and the court should have been pressed to not split the decision because it is confusing. The question is what can be taught in schools? If homosexual marriage is no longer law but unions are protected so strongly as they are then what will the classroom agenda be for the students regarding this?

    This is a real mess. Like you said god will have the final say. Thank God for that!

    ReplyDelete

Please send me an email if you try to post a comment and cannot do so. Dunamis1@netzero.com. Thanks.