The people have spoken.
Now the judges will tell us what they actually meant.
In the latest turn in a long-running battle on Gay Marriage in California, a Federal Judge has ruled the state ban on Gay Marriage unconstitutional. Naturally Gays were ecstatic at the news, but some of the things that they were saying made me wonder if they were truly thinking at all.
“Our courts are supposed to protect our Constitutional rights… Today, they did.” Untrue. The constitution does not mention marriage at all. Zip. Zilch. Nada. And no, “the pursuit of happiness” does not include the right to marry a same-sex adult any more than it applies to three other adults, a child, a Llama or a pile of bricks.
Even the judge was getting in on the act: “…the evidence shows Proposition 8 does nothing more than enshrine in the California Constitution the notion that opposite-sex couples are superior to same-sex couples… “. Where does it say that? All this ban says is who may marry and who may not. Here’s another gem from the judge: “Proposition 8 perpetuates the stereotype that gays and lesbians are incapable of forming long-term loving relationships and that gays and lesbians are not good parents.” That’s utter bollocks – or, as Tina Turner might put it, “what’s love got to do with it?” Where does it say that gays and lesbians are not good parents?
Sometimes I wonder whether these folks believe what they see or whether they see what they believe.
This leads to some hard questions:
- “What is Marriage?” The problem isn’t one of laws, but of definitions. My definition is one adult male, one adult female and zero or more children. Their definition, naturally, is different. But how elastic does that difference have to be? I feel strongly enough about this definition, but I will not go into it any further as I have already covered it here.
- “Who invented Marriage?” Historically, marriage was God’s invention – or at least the church’s. Marriage is also known in ecclesiastical circles as “Holy Matrimony“. The word “Holy” actually means “set apart, sacred or special”. So where is the oft-misquoted-and-badly-abused “separation of Church and State” when you need it?
- “If it is a religious thing, why is the State involved at all?” In a word, Taxes. Married couples have historically been penalized when it comes to taxes, though the “marriage penalty” has largely disappeared… though I don’t remember any large-scale legal battles about this…
- “So who is responsible for it now?” Like Abortion, there is absolutely no reason why the Federal Government has any claim on “policing” marriage. Yet Gay rights activists insist that the Federal Government has to have the last word on the matter, presumably so they can foist their moral standards on everyone else.
This is clearly a States’ rights issue. Each state should be free to do as they will, and people can vote with their feet.
California seemed to think so too. That’s why they did the right thing and took it to a referendum in the 2008 election. The people spoke, and what came out of their mouths is “No, we don’t want Gay Marriage”. And that was when the trouble started.
As I have said before, the real question is not one of Religion but one of legal standing. If two adults of the same gender want to live together, they should be allowed to. If they want to raise children, I won’t stop them – I suspect that a loving gay couple will raise better kids than a feuding heterosexual couple (even though I suspect that there may be some gender confusion in their formative years). As someone who was raised by one parent, I cannot speak for the efficacy of marriage in raising well-balanced kids.
This is not over. There will be an appeal, and most likely a final appeal to the Supreme Court, who will most likely try to re-write the constitution from the bench. And gay marriages will eventually be allowed nationwide; not because it is right, but because the Supreme Court wants us to be like Europe.
But in the meantime, I do wish that those in favor of Gay Marriage would read the constitution before they start taking its name in vain.