19 May California Supreme Court Decision will Result in Unintended Consequences
California Supreme Court Decision will Result in Unintended
May 19, 2008
The State of California is known for its earthquakes, and Thursday’s re-definition of marriage by the California Supreme Court delivereda social “jolt” on the magnitude of 8.0. A mere four Supreme Court justices did the unthinkable by declaring one-man/one-woman marriage unconstitutional. The decision overturned the will of the state’s people, who voted 61-39 percent in favor of a traditional marriage ballot proposition eight years ago.
The Alliance Defense Fund announced plans to ask the Supreme Court to stay its decision until the November election. California’s election ballot will include a defense of marriage proposition that will impact the future of marriage in that state.
It may seem progressive or enlightened to clear the way for homosexuals to marry persons of their own gender. However, upon closer examination, this decision will surely result in unintended consequences which will be harmful to the citizens of California and threaten the marriage laws of other states.
California will quickly become a destination for same-sex couples from other states who will travel there to get “married” and then return to their home state and demand legal recognition of their “marriages.” This will directly threaten the democratic process and societal order.
Specifically, California’s high court ruled:
“We cannot find that retention of the traditional definition of marriage constitutes a compelling state interest. Accordingly, we conclude that to the extent the current California statutory provisions limit marriage to opposite-sex couples, these statutes are unconstitutional.”
This is a case of blatant judicial activism. The court has placed adult indulgence over what is best for society.
The simplest remedy to such judicial activism is a federal marriage amendment to the United States Constitution. Given the political make-up of Congress, such an amendment is not an option. Hence, each state must protect itself individually by state constitutional amendments. Twenty-seven states have taken that route since 2004.
Freedoms Suffer, Taxpayers Burdened
When same-sex “marriage” becomes law – as it has previously in Europe, Canada and Massachusetts, constitutional and religious liberties are diminished. Homosexuality is then mainstreamed in public schools and throughout public life. Pastors and churches are forced to perform same-sex “marriages” against their better wishes. Opposition to homosexuality is squelched.
The constitutional freedoms we have long taken for granted are now under direct assault from a bill before the U.S. Senate – the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA). Expected to gain a vote in the Senate very soon, ENDA would discriminate against people of faith for opposing homosexuality.
The Safest Home Environment
The safest place for children is the home of married parents of opposite genders. Homosexual relationships last just 18 months on average, and the children in these homes are at risk. Non-traditional relationships result in higher rates of domestic violence and a marked increase in the drain on taxpayer-funded social agencies.
Thursday’s decision reflects a movement to replace traditional family ties to marriage with a view that emphasizes marriage as a matter of adult wants and needs. Marriage is in fact, primarily about meeting the needs of children. Governments have long recognized and promoted marriage as essential to society because it contributes the healthiest environment for producing the next generation of responsible citizens.
Unlike California, courts in other jurisdictions have in the recent past found compelling reasons to protect the definition of marriage. The Maryland Court of Appeals upheld marriage last September, declaring:
We are unwilling to hold that a right to same-sex marriage has taken hold to the point that it is implicit in the concept of ordered liberty or deeply rooted in the history and tradition of Maryland.
An Arizona court ruled:
[A]lthough many traditional views of homosexuality have been recast over time in our state and Nation, the choice to marry a same-sex partner has not taken sufficient root to receive constitutional protection as a fundamental right.
The New York Supreme Court stated:
By limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples, New York is not engaging in sex discrimination. The limitation does not put men and women in different classes, and give one class a benefit not given to the other. Women and men are treated alike — they are permitted to marry people of the opposite sex, but not people of their own sex.
Indeed, marriage contributes to civil society and the overall health of individuals, families, communities and nations. The California decision is a setback for humanity. We must protect and defend marriage.
President United Families International