Protecting Marriage
An interesting comment posted by a thoughtful visitor of this site prompted this post. Michael suggested we stop blaming judges for the current attempt to legally redefine the terms "family" and "marriage". As I see it, the problem is that those on the opposite side of this issue are using the judiciary as the primary weapon in this political fight. Here are some examples compiled by Family Leader.
Massachusetts – May 17, 2004: After a ruling by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, the state begins issuing marriage licenses to homosexual couples. This leads directly to schools openly promoting homosexuality and to Catholic Charities being forced to stop placing children for adoptions.
In 2004, the mayors of several cities, beginning with San Francisco, issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples (Sandoval County, New Mexico; New Paltz, New York, and Multnomah County, Oregon). State courts rule those “marriages” invalid, but appeals are pending.
Nebraska – May 21, 2005: A federal judge overturns the state’s constitutional marriage amendment, which had been enacted by a ballot vote of 70 percent.
California – September 6, 2005: The legislature becomes the first in the nation to pass a law mandating legalization of homosexual “marriages.” Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R) vetoes the bill, but proponents say they’ll be back.
Connecticut – October, 2005: Connecticut becomes the sixth state (after California, Hawaii, New Jersey, Massachusetts and Vermont) to offer some form of legal recognition to same-sex couples.
Maryland – January 20, 2006: A Baltimore City judge strikes down the state marriage law, and then stays her order pending appeal.
Georgia – May 16, 2006: A county judge overturns the state marriage protection amendment enacted in 2004 by a 76-percent ballot vote.
Utah – May 16, 2006: The state Supreme Court upholds the bigamy conviction of a former police officer, Rodney Holm. He had challenged the marriage law after being convicted in 2002 upon his third “marriage.” Chief Justice Christine Durham dissents, saying the state law violates the “privacy of intimate, personal relationships” and religious freedom.
Washington – The state Supreme Court will rule soon on a challenge to that state’s marriage law, as will the high court in New Jersey. Both courts are dominated by liberals. Unlike Massachusetts, neither Washington nor New Jersey has a law barring marriages to out-of-state couples whose own states do not recognize “gay” marriage. Thus, if either state begins issuing marriage licenses to couples from the other 49 states, the recipients will return to their own states and file lawsuits challenging not only their state laws but the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). (1)
- Congress passed DOMA in 1996 defining marriage for all purposes as only the union of one man and one woman, and affirming that states may reject claims against their marriage laws that do not conform to their stated public policy. Family Leader filed an amicus brief in the New Jersey case and our partners the Marriage Law Foundation has filed amicus briefs in nearly every marriage definition lawsuit across the country.
Lawsuits filed by homosexual activists seeking to overturn state marriage laws are pending in 10 states: California, Connecticut, Florida, Iowa, Maryland, Nebraska, New Jersey, New York, Oklahoma and Washington.
Readers, where do you think the blame lies?
Comment(s) »
» Leave a comment
- Your E-mail address is never displayed. If you enter it, it will only be visible to the blog author
- Since there already are comments to this post, your eventual comment might trigger a notification e-mail to the persons that commented before you.
- The line and paragraph breaks automatically
Hey Cate,
First off, I fear that I may have been misunderstood a little. My point in suggesting a convention for amendments, was not to absolve judge's from their rulings. It's long seemed to me that no judge is free from their own juristic predilictions, and I don't know if that would even be possible. However, I do feel that all judges try to work from precedence, as they best understand it (their own human limitations not withstanding). To the extent that they do, or fail to do so, is the measure of the judge. That doesn't excuse cases of overreaching, but often with controversial rulings, the truly 'controversial' decision was usually made years earlier in a little noted decision.
Example, Roe v. Wade. While Roe v. Wade did effectively legalize abortions (up to fetal viability only, though), it hung on an earlier decision, Griswold v. Connecticut, which established "privacy" as a fundamental Constitutional right. Without Griswold, Roe v. Wade would never have been decided as such. With Griswold, it was difficult to see moderate jurists ruling otherwise. I make no stand here as to the merit of Roe v. Wade. That's not the purpose of this post. I'm merely stating that the 'key' issue on which a decision is made has often been made a long time ago, and this fact is overshadowed by the more immediate implications of the current ruling.
I'm not a lawyer, and no legal expert by any means. Please note that I am intentionally oversimplifying my already limited understanding as well.
But to take as an example, the Nebraska case, (which I might agree seems like a case of over-reaching by the judge) actually hung most of its foundation on a Supreme Court ruling from 1984 (Roberts v. Jaycees)- a case that was decided unanimously (with two Justices abstaining). In that case, the Supreme Court ruled that the state of Minnesota could not force the Jaycees to include women as full members against the Jaycee's will. But more significantly, that case was the most recent affirmation from the Supreme Court that the right of people to associate with who they chose to could not be infringed on by the government without strong reasons.
Now, if the Nebraska amendment had just banned marriages, perhaps this ruling would have gone differently... but the Nebraska amendment went further than just 'marraige.' It banned any legal recognition of same-sex relationships at all. No 'civil union,' no 'domestic partnerships.' In short, no association. This is clearly an infringement on the right of association. By Supreme Court precedent, it would require strong governmental intersts to justify. Note- the votes of 70% of the populace is NOT strong governmental interest by itself. It is incumbent on the government to demonstrate what those interests are.
Now, perhaps you would assert that there ARE strong moral and social reasons for the government to deny any legal acknowledgement of gay relationships, that the damage to the social fabric is too dire, and must be met with suppression on a governmental level. But I trust you to be fair in return and at least acknowledge that the point is arguable. We allow other dangerous groups like the KKK, or Nation of Islam, their right to associate.
Anyway, my point for calling a convention would be to get some more base lines in agreement.
What IS obscene? What IS a strong governmental interest? And while we're at it, can we talk about the Ninth Amendment? Does it mean anything?? Maybe we need some more enumeration...
Comment by Michael— 2006/06/05 @ 05:51 AM — (Reply)
What I see as happening even more often is that decision used to determine specific cases are then used to support other cases with totally unrelated circumstances. There are six degrees of separation between Roe and Griswold and everyone knows it - including the high court. Justices have even spoken on this matter.
Re: paragraph 3, not a lawyer either - just doing my best to understand the mess we've created. (or allowed to be created)
Re: the Nebraska case - banning homosexual unions would cross the lines of 'association' but banning legal recognition of those unions is another matter entirely. Does the government grant any special legal rights to the Jaycees? If the Jaycees wanted to adopt a child (as a group) could they? If the Jaycees wanted all members covered under the local leader's medical insurance would the state recognize that desire?
The right to associate and the right to be legally recognized as an entity are two different things. No court order guarantees me the right to sit on my porch with the other moms but we do it anyway. Should I claim that a special relationship with the mom next door allows me the right to, say, not testify against her in court, do you know what a judge would tell me? An emphatic and resounding, NO! Again it would appear there are six degrees of separation. I'll do more research on the legal definitions of "association".
Again the associations of the KKK, Nation of Islam and other such organizations have reasonable limits of association. Do you think child-welfare would place a child in the custody of the KKK? No.
Association does not entitle a group to the same rights that gay people are seeking. This is another example of playing games within the legal system to achieve an ends that does not correspond to the intent of the cases used as precedent.
Liberals (I know I'm generalizing here) in this coutnry are furious with Bush for "misleading" them into war. I never felt misled because I understood from the beginning what he was suggesting - there were even things I didn't agree with but I never felt misled - his objectives were clear to me. But for lawyers to use the system, not as a means to defend the innocent, but to legislate using rulings from unrelated cases, is HONEST? It's a deceptive practice at its core designed to rewrite the law by legislating from the courtrom. And often enough from the bench.
I will agree that cases like Brown v. BOE were instrumental in making positive changes in society - But let's not kid ourselves with the idea that Brown is the example rather than the exception in recent years. We've got pedophiles on parole and child porn producers getting out on technicalities.
Comment by Cate— 2006/06/05 @ 10:45 AM — (Reply)
Hey there Cate,
I don't want to get into it heavily, or put you on the spot here. But I've seen the implication a few times. Can I ask you directly? Does "gay" = "pedophile, child porn producers"?
Comment by Michael— 2006/06/06 @ 07:55 AM — (Reply)
I didn't intend to imply they were the same although I may have linked to sites that hold that opinion on other posts. We've erased nearly all moral judgement from the public square. About the only concensus left is that we want to protect our children so I tend to overuse those examples to illustrate the agregiousness of our societal failings.
Think about the fact that the left and right can't agree on when conception begins or when death should be alloewd (euthanasia, death penalty). We can't agree on what marriage is or what defines family. We can't agree on how to teach kids about sex or at what age. On whether parents have the right to object to the state or NEA teaching values that are at odds to the family's beliefs. On how to deal with border jumpers or censorship (flag burning, for example) or almost anything short of murder. And then WRT murder, you've got thousands marching for Tookie in California and you've got anti-war protesters holding up signs that say "We support our troops when they kill their officers." In my opinion, it won't be long before we don't agree on crimes against children. You saw the post about Mary Kay and Vili last Friday night - people don't even agree about a 34 year old woman creating a life with a 13 year old 6th grader.
As for what I really think about homosexuality, here goes:
I believe that it is one in a list of sexual acts that is proscribed by God. I believe God is a grand scientist who has designed a world within which creatures multiply after their own kind. I believe that we are here to learn to be selfless and that selflessness comes from learning to put other's before ourselves - there is no way to replicate the love of a parent for a natural child. In the same way that God sent Abraham to sacrifice his son for the sake of teaching him to appreciate God's own sacrifice for men, parenting your own children is a lesson in godhood - in a small measure you come to understand the exquisite joy and pain involved in the willingness to give your life without a second thought and in the difficulty of living life daily with the struggles of a child you love but see straying. I believe that the family unit is more than society's building block - I believe it is God's schoolhouse and that as pupils we are here to learn to be like Him.
What greater offense can there be to a God, who loves his children with such a profound and eternal love that He let one son die for the rest, than to willingly abdicate the blessing of accepting what He offered, to become a parent as He is and to become over time elevated and more holy by the trials of adversity and the beauties beyond description only to be found within the walls of a family home?
Clearly, many traditional families fail - there are abusive spouses and parents, men and women who lie, partners who choose lust over loyalty. And I believe that like homosexuality these acts are all an affront to God.
Do I believe that there is an organized "Homosexual Agenda"? Who knows? But what I do know is that social movements begin with small numbers of like-minded men who speak out often and loudly until they win converts. That is how civil rights were won for American blacks and it is why there is only a slim majority who still stand against same-sex marriage. There is evidence of organized groups working toward the same end - is it a vast gay wing conspiracy? Again, who knows?
Do I believe homosexuality deserves a chunk of my blog? Yes. The issue is timely, newsworthy, and revolutionizing our society.
Much bigger nutshell than I intended, but there you have it, Michael.
Comment by Cate— 2006/06/06 @ 08:02 PM — (Reply)
As is often the case, you write intelligently and clearly, Cate. I don't have time to craft a response, nor do I really feel that one is necessary. You've spoken true, and little more needs to be said.
Comment by Michael— 2006/06/07 @ 09:38 AM — (Reply)