redblueamerica.com

For citizens who hoped that same-sex marriage would go away and those who could not wait for it, the California Supreme Court has delivered a jolt. (Scroll down to Opinions, click it , and then click PDF for May 15 in re Marriages)  In its narrow 4-3 decision to strike down both natural and civil law that marriage is between one man and one woman, the high court has aroused some from political slumber and others to a state of high excitement.

Anyone experienced in politics knows that passion often moves people more than reason. Thus, a ruling in favor of the sexual predilections of a few, and against the steady habits of the many, stirs our worst fears. The irrational fulcrum upon which the same-sex marriage decision turns is the questionable benefit of "dignity" for homosexual and lesbian unions and their "families."

It is not enough for Chief Justice Ronald George and his three colleagues that California has legalized civil unions for same-sex couples, with practically all the rights and obligations of traditional marriage. No, it must confer the dignity of marriage. Ordinarily, courts strike down laws when they do actual harm to individuals. It is difficult to credit the Court’s idea that gays’ being deprived of the word "marriage" does any such thing.

However, the lesson in this, as noted by Prof. Joseph Knippenberg of Emory University at the No Left Turns web site, is that the civil union halfway house favored by liberals and others is no longer tenable. It’s either full-fledged marriage status for same-sex couples, or nothing.

I’ll take that bet and raise it. Once the vast majority of Californians realize that fact this November, when an initiative constitutional amendment is on the ballot to save traditional marriage, they will not find it hard to reject "gay marriage." If I were part of the campaign to defeat the measure, I would be deeply concerned.

The parallel with the greatest of all moral/political questions in our history, viz., whether it is legitimate to enslave human beings of the African race, could not be more striking. Abraham Lincoln, in condemning Democratic efforts to avoid the moral issue, likened them to finding a man who is neither alive nor dead. There is no middle ground, and the California Supreme Court has closed the door to it here:

"As past cases establish, the substantive right of two adults who share a loving relationship to join together to establish an officially recognized family of their own — and, if the couple chooses, to raise children within that family —constitutes a vitally important attribute of the fundamental interest in liberty and personal autonomy that the California Constitution secures to all persons for the benefit of both the individual and society . . .

"We therefore conclude that although the provisions of the current domestic partnership legislation afford same-sex couples most of the substantive elements embodied in the constitutional right to marry, the current California statutes nonetheless must be viewed as potentially impinging upon a same-sex couple’s constitutional right to marry under the California Constitution."

The key word is "potentially." The Court majority frankly admits that, not only do homosexuals and lesbians not suffer unduly from invidious discrimination in this State, but that segment of the population is politically and financially powerful. No one doubts that the proponents of same-sex marriage will outspend their opponents by three or four times. They can count on Democratic party support and ostensibly Republican Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, who has said he will not support the measure.

The Court majority also spoke to the question of the impact of its decision on attempts to legalize polygamy and even incest. Chief Justice George emphasized that the people of California have long since outlawed those perversions. Which means what? Maybe nothing, since the Court itself struck down the ban on same-sex marriage, no less the judgment of Californians.

The Court limits marriage to two adults unrelated by family, but the ground of bans on same-sex marriage, polygamy and incest is exactly the same. Polygamists have already piggybacked on the U.S. Supreme Court’s overturning of state laws proscribing homosexual sodomy, filing lawsuits arguing that the principle of sexual autonomy justifies their desires too.

The Court’s attempt to affix the attributes of marriage and family on same-sex couples flies in the face of both natural science and common sense, which agree that only a man and a woman can make a family, the natural consequence, at least potentially, of their marriage. Assorted scrambled arrangements of adults and children do not qualify.

Of course, activists for same-sex marriage have resorted to the courts to win this victory, for the people of California voted for Proposition 22 in 2000 (61 to 39 percent) to uphold the marriage of a man and a woman. This year the voters of California will amend the Constitution in favor of real marriages and families.