In a decision that will undoubtedly spark just as many legal challenges as it will controversy, the California Supreme Court in a 4 to 3 decision ruled to endorse gay marriage. Over tuning a referendum by 61% of California voters who weighed in on the 2004 ballot initiative regardless of political affiliation to initially ignore their votes and proceed ahead in what the California high court perceived as the right thing to do. Chief Justice Ronald George issued a statement saying “”In view of the substance and significance of the fundamental constitutional right to form a family relationship,” the Chief Justice continued, “the California Constitution properly must be interpreted to guarantee this basic civil right to all Californians, whether gay or heterosexual, and to same-sex couples as well as to opposite-sex couples.” adding “we cannot find a reason to legally support a ban on same sex marriage”.

This article is not going to weigh in on the lawfulness or legality of the argument underneath this all; that is a whole other topic by itself. But to identify what the High Court did, and what the lawfulness or legality in how they came about to their decision impacts the electorate as it pertains to the will of the people. Now, having stated this… dissenting High court judges knew this was going to be a problem, and therefore challenged right away added in sharp dissent “…But a bare majority of this court,” added Justice Marvin J. Baxter, “not satisfied with the pace of democratic change, now abruptly forestalls that process and substitutes, by judicial fiat, its own social policy views [as a substitute] for those expressed by the People themselves.” Now, having both sides stated clearly, we have to present the playing field as it is know so the both arguments will bear themselves out and fall into place as admissible or dismissible as we move along here.

The playing field [so to speak] is what America is constitutionally? That is simple to answer if you know what our national documents reveal as the source of inspiration for the development of our laws, then government. We are a republic – basically, one man… one vote. Ok, so how do we express one man, one vote? We do it democratically under the rule of law. Simply put, we are 50 states codified together under a federal umbrella of protections, expressed [therefore governed] by the rule of law, and only practice some democratic elements in bringing the “voice of the people” into the spectrum of governance. We have a tripartite form of government that is unique in all the world and works when we aren’t attempting to “interpret” the law over understanding its clear meaning. Chief Justice George took careful consideration of his words when crafting his responses, note he used the words “interpret” in his pursuit of delivering what he feel should be offered unilaterally regardless of lawfulness, and that being said, is the difference between lawfulness understood by social conservatives and legality required by liberals. Law is moral at its roots, it clearly divides the line between minimum standards in individual self governance acceptable to a people for its self preservation and that of behavior clearly falling short of that accepted standard, therefore under the law.

Here is the danger in interpreting the law rather than submitting to its commonly understood and acknowledged meaning. Interpretation itself is an act of will. It doesn’t wait for the revelation of its under sting to come to the root of its known meaning, it “chooses” [notice the rhetoric] to clearly adopt what is comfortable to deal with at the moment, and discards what is left [again] for what is comfortable to deal with. In short, interpretation is a form of rebellion… one doesn’t want to know or care to know what is right in a given situation or issue, it will parse what it can handle and ignore the rest. In recapping what was just highlighted:

  • Legality: Is preferred by liberals because anything can be made legal. Thus the reason why they reject moral clarity in their legislation as it is more palpable to govern by the political correctness of popular opinion.
  • Lawfulness: Is preferred by social conservatives because true law is not justly enforceable with a principled foundation. Moral clarity provides that in the least intrusive manner possible in governing a broad populous of people regardless of ethnicity or culture.

What was disturbing about what followed shortly after the ruling came down was the posturing on the liberal side of the isle. As is there was a valid justification to be offering in snubbing the will of the people in lieu of some shortsighted legal postulation for the High Court. Other voices started to chime in on the matter offering whatever points they felt would validate their positions further. “This decision will give Americans the lived experience that ending exclusion from marriage helps families and harms no one,” said Evan Wolfson, executive director of Freedom to Marry, a special interest group dedicated to the advancement of the homosexual lobby added that same-sex marriages were legal in Belgium, Canada, the Netherlands, South Africa and Spain. The next and obvious question is… who cares what Belgium, Canada, The Dutch, South Africans nor the Spanish do. Our tax dollars do not support their governments, neither does it vice-versa. Our national sovereignty isn’t subject to the bully pulpit of global interventionism. That is the dividing line between a revolution looking for support through global consensus, and right minded people standing up and defending and institution that has preempted every form of government since the beginning of time.

The High Court broke the law in supporting an invalid position by first off associating a sexual behavior and confusing it with one’s own color. Depraved is the mind that confuses and makes those distinctions. The liberal contingent in the court went back to a 1940 civil rights ruling based on color to support their baseless interpretation. Our constitution protects what you are, not who you become… one’s sexual choices are not deserving the same protections as the inalienable right to defend and protect a person’s right to engage the culture based on what they are over the choices they make. It is irrational as it is illogical to make those assertions. But yet the court was high on itself and did just that, not content to have their arguments weighted out in the free marketplace of ideas, not having a shred of intellectual honesty or moral fortitude to hold their ideals under the light of balanced discussion. They hide behind the leverage of court appointed fascists who lie in wait to make their Orwellian social fantasies come true.

0 0 votes
Article Rating