« California Supreme Court Declares Democracy Unconstitutional | Main | The Law is a Great Teacher »
Fallout and Implications: Homosexual Marriage
by American Phoenix | May 19, 2008
Several excellent articles have been written on the implications and fallout from the California Supreme Court’s decision on gay marriage:
The American Thinker has posted an excellent and humorous article on the potential for more legal mischief:
The court goes on, with a great deal of verbal sleight-of-hand and gobbledygook, to justify gay marriage, i.e. the elevation of the union of two males or two females, who engage in mutual sexual activity, to the full status of marriage. The first thing we notice about this argument is the superfluity of the word “two”. True, the words “two adults” and “couple” do appear in the decision, but only by way of example and not of restriction. No argument is given for the magical uniqueness of “two” and no argument presented thereafter is not equally applicable to three or four or more gay men or lesbian women. It is my fond hope that, even as we speak, some gay trio or quartet in San Francisco is planning to apply for a marriage license. And I would defy the California Supreme Court, with the present decision in place, to devise a way to stop them within the boundaries of its own principles.
The author then goes on to analyze why, under the Court’s decision, polygamy - whether homo- or heterosexual, must be legally permitted and concludes:
But the fun doesn’t stop there. Even the ingenious wordsmiths of CSC would be hard pressed to justify specific sexual acts as requirements for full marital status. Accepting the arguments used for granting marital status to gay couples and trios, we must admit that there would be no honest reason for denying the same status to other cohabiting couples such as brothers and/or sisters, cousins, or just friends.
Consider, for example, two old friends of mine, Felix and Oscar, who have shared an apartment for decades. Their friendship has no homoerotic overtones; they are in fact persistently if unsuccessfully heterosexual. The legalization of gay marriages wouldn’t help them a bit. But if they were to claim to be gay partners, they would, under the present CSC decision, be eligible for all the advantages of a gay marriage. If that isn’t “discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation”, please tell me what is. Therefore, in all fairness, the CSC must extend its permission to them and their ilk.
…
But let us look on the bright side. The CSC decision could lead to the restoration of clans or tribes — a concept that has often had a strong stabilizing effect on society. Eventually, whole communities or cities might be joined in matrimony. Ultimately the whole population of California might become one big happy family, filing a single enormous tax return and referring to the governor (by then hereditary) as “big daddy” or big mama”. And in such an intimate family-state, there would be no need for a supreme court.
Shlichta, Paul, Some Logical Corollaries of California’s Gay Marriage Decision, American Thinker, May 19, 2008.
I’m sure Shlichta must have had his tongue firmly planted in his cheek when he spoke about the “strong stabilizing effect on society” of clans or tribes. Just look at the stability of the societies in the Middle East and Africa. It should be no surprise then, when the lawsuits advocating the legalization of polygamy begin to be filed in California. I predicted this two years ago.
The Reluctant Penitent believes, as do I, that this decision will be used to stigmatize - and ultimately worse - people who think that homosexual marriage is not in society’s best interests:
The real effect of the decision is to marginalize people who have a certain view on human sexuality. It also happens that such a view is taught by the Catholic Church, by conservative Protestant denominations, by Muslims, and by and by traditional Jews. Thus the law gives people who disagree with these religious groups the right to control and stigmatize them in some quite dramatic ways.
The rabbi, priest, and minister who choose to speak about sexuality with their congregations may be surprised to learn that, in the eyes of the State of California, they are doing something as morally reprehensible as the neo-Nazi seething to his fellow hatemongers about the vices of the black and Jewish races. Right now, in the state of California, anyone, religious or not, who thinks that human sexual activity should be restricted to the heterosexual marital relationship is as marginal as a racist or a Holocaust denier.
Sure, they can continue to communicate on the fringes of society, and on dodgy internet sites. But in any mainstream context they can be denied the right to communicate their ideas, on the grounds that they are arbitrary, intolerant, and dangerous.
The real aim of the California Supreme Court decision, The Reluctant Penitent, May 16, 2008
I happen to agree with Reluctant Penitent’s assessment. People who think homosexual marriage is wrong, both because of reason and faith, will be marginalized, stigmatized and pushed to the fringes of society. Our businesses will not be our own to manage as we please. Wedding photographers will be forced to work for homosexual couples. Landlords will be forced to rent to homosexual couples. We will be forced into a “polite” silence at dinner parties. Judges who refused to preside over homosexual marriages will be, and already have been, summarily fired. Churches will, and already have had, their tax free status revoked for refusing to recognize homosexual marriages. Religious schools, whether they be Christian, Muslim or Jewish, will not be allowed to hire teachers/staff or admit students who conduct themselves in accord with the principles that those religious schools are attempting to teach. Students at public schools will be indoctrinated with the state’s ideology that homosexual marriage is as good as heterosexual marriage, and ultimately that there is no justification for banning polygamy either. Public school students will therefore conclude that marriage is utterly meaningless. Just as they have already done in several northern European countries.
Regardless of what it is called, legal sanctioning of homosexual relationships creates a host of unintended consequences and constitutes a serious threat to religious liberty.
Consider what happened in Massachusetts in 2004: Justices of the peace who refused to preside over same-sex unions due to moral or religious objections were summarily fired. Since same-sex unions were entitled to be treated the same as traditional marriages, this refusal was discrimination and a firing offense.
What about a priest or minister who similarly refuses to preside at such ceremonies? Obviously the state can’t fire such people, but it is easy to foresee other sanctions — such as loss of tax benefits — being imposed on churches.
…
Just last year, two women filed a complaint in New Jersey because they were denied use of a pavilion for their civil union ceremony. The pavilion was owned by a Methodist ministry. It had been rented out for marriages, but the ministry refused to rent it for civil unions because it is a religious structure, and civil unions are not recognized in the United Methodist Church Book of Discipline.
Due to the ministry’s refusal to rent it for the lesbian ceremony, New Jersey revoked its tax-free status.
The Des Moines Human Rights Commission found the local Young Men’s Christian Association in violation of public accommodation laws because it refused to extend “family membership” privileges to a lesbian couple that had entered a civil union in Vermont.
Accordingly, the city forced the YMCA to recognize gay and lesbian unions as “families” for membership purposes, or lose over $100,000 in government support.
Perhaps the most notorious example of a state forcing its view on a church agency comes from Massachusetts, where Boston Catholic Charities ran an adoption agency that had been placing children with families for over 100 years.
In 2006, Archbishop Sean P. O’Malley announced that the agency would abandon its founding mission rather than submit to a state law requiring it to place children with homosexual couples. (A Vatican document from 2003 described gay adoptions as ”gravely immoral.”)
…
Bishop Fred Henry of Calgary, Canada, was investigated by the Alberta Human Rights Commission for doing little more than writing about this teaching in a newspaper column. Åke Green, pastor of a Pentecostalist church in Sweden, was tried, convicted, and sentenced to a month in prison for a sermon that insulted homosexuals.
It may seem that legal recognition of civil unions or gay marriages is a trivial matter and one that respects the basic dignity of gay people. The unintended legal consequences that flow from such recognition, however, present a serious threat to religious liberty.
Courts and legislatures need to consider these consequences before committing the nation to a policy with so many potential pitfalls.
Rychlak, Ronald J., The Unintended Consequences of ‘Same Sex Marriage’, Catholic Online, May 2, 2008
Elizabeth Fox-Genovese, a professor at Emory University, foresaw these consequences before her death in 2007:
Many Americans, who come to see same-sex marriage as just another step in marriage’s evolution, will accept the public pronouncements that they are doing no more than supporting “fairness” by extending some valuable benefits to people of the same sex who happen to love each other and wish to live together without shame or stigma. What could be more innocuous? But for the hardcore activists, the real goal is the destruction of marriage as the union of a man and a woman. They aim to discredit all forms of authority — especially God and nature — that dare to tell people how to lead their lives. In the view of queer activists, desire, like love in Carmen’s “Habenera,” knows no law — nor should any be imposed upon it.
In the current climate, the appeal of their position is not hard to understand, especially since most of those who accept it do not begin to understand its implications. If anything, the defense of same-sex marriage looks like yet another logical step in the gradual increase in freedom for all members of society. And since activists, the courts, and the media overwhelmingly encourage this deception, we may readily understand that many people may come to see same-sex marriage as another blow against outmoded and illegitimate forms of authority — a blow for freedom and equality. Buying into this view, however, they will remain blind to the ways in which they are playing into the hands of vast governmental and economic powers. The freedom for gays and lesbians to marry will decisively contribute to disaggregating all of the remaining social institutions that provide the foundations for any collective resistance against political and economic domination.
Fox-Genovese, Elizabeth, Marriage On Trial, excerpted from Marriage: The Dream That Refuses to Die, National Review Online, May 16, 2008
Will this court decision stand? Insight Scoop reports that it is up to the voters to decide. 1.1 million California voters signed petitions to put a constitutional amendment that protects marriage on the November 2008 ballot. California voters may have the last word and protect democracy from judicial fiat. Then again, they may not. The California Log Cabin Republicans (a homosexual activist organization) suggests that the people are no longer allowed to amend the Constitution:
As noted in McFadden v. Jordan (1948) 32 Cal.2d 330, 333: “The initiative power reserved by the people by amendment to the Constitution in 1911 (art. IV, s 1) applies only to the proposing and the adopting or rejecting of ‘laws and amendments to the Constitution’ and does not purport to extend to a constitutional revision.”
The ideologues want nothing less than to destroy democracy in California and in the United States of America. They have complete disregard for the will of the people - to the point that Californians might not even be allowed to rectify this Constitutional mess solely because of the semantic difference between the meanings of the words “amendment” and “revision.”
Those California Supreme Court justices who have such disregard for our votes should also be removed from the Court. California voters have done this before when Rose Bird was removed from the Court. It can and should be done again.
Topics: Adoption, California, Catholic, Christianity, Culture of Death, Family, Homosexuality, Law, Politics, Polygamy, Religion |
May 20th, 2008 at 12:31 am
But if they were to claim to be gay partners, they would, under the present CSC decision, be eligible for all the advantages of a gay marriage.
Isn’t that currently possible for male-female couples (roommates, etc.) who don’t have sex? It doesn’t seem to be a unique argument.
In the view of queer activists, desire, like love in Carmen’s “Habenera,” knows no law — nor should any be imposed upon it.
Fox-Genovese here implies that all “queer activists,” and by extension, all gay people, act and think alike. Even if we ignore the fact that it is, because of its stereotyping, a bigoted argument to make, it’s also analytically unsound. The “queers” who fight for marriage are conservative–asking to be bound together by laws, to be limited in their romantic exploits.
May 20th, 2008 at 8:28 am
Phil,
Until last week, any unmarried male could marry any unmarried female. They might have been roommates before they were married - or not. However, one of the primary purposes of marriage is the having and raising of children - something that mere roommates generally do not want to create together. Even after the advent of so-called “no fault” divorce, a marriage can still be annulled by the state on the grounds of infertility or that it is physically impossible to consummate the marriage.
Fox-Genovese limits her comment to “hardcore activists” so I think your reading is a stretch. However, by calling Fox-Genovese “bigoted” and by your own blog post, you’ve just proven the truth of what several people have already written above - that a primary goal of homosexual activists is to stigmatize and oppress people who think differently. So much for diversity of thought.
According to your own blog post, it doesn’t matter what principled reasons a person has for opposing the redefinition of marriage to include homosexual unions - as long as such a person holds the same position as someone else who does so out of hatred or fear of homosexuals, then everyone who opposes homosexual marriage can be labeled and dismissed as a “bigot”.
Which, of course, completely ignores that a person might do or think a thing for the right reason OR the wrong reason. It also lumps everyone opposed to homosexual marriage in the same boat which sounds, well, bigoted.
I reject the notion that homosexuals who fight to redefine marriage are conservative - at least in this aspect. I would probably agree with the Log Cabin Republicans on many issues - but not this one.
Active homosexuals have rejected the first law - the law of nature written in their bodies. Unhinged from that law, there can be no limits. (Perhaps this is one reason why homosexuals seek “to be limited in their romantic exploits” - because they intrinsically realize the need for such limits.)
Without male/female, marriage can’t even be limited to two people, since the number two becomes arbitrary and meaningless. The law itself has no relation to any physical reality rooted in the nature of what it is to be human, which includes our maleness and femaleness.
Demanding that the law be changed and marriage be redefined to include homosexual unions, is like asking for a law that doesn’t limit. Such a law doesn’t limit, because it logically can’t. No matter what leaps of faith the California Supreme Court might make.
It should nevertheless be pointed out that this debate should not be an excuse to treat other human beings horribly, whatever their sexual tendencies. Homosexuals do not choose their homosexual condition, whatever the reason for it may be. Many of them suffer terribly. My own cousin suffered horribly before he died of AIDS at the age of 42. Compassion, and sensitivity are called for. Even so, redefining marriage to include homosexual couples is a kind of misplaced compassion that does great damage to the institution of marriage itself and which doesn’t really do anything substantial to improve the lives of homosexual people.
May 20th, 2008 at 9:37 am
a marriage can still be annulled by the state on the grounds of infertility or that it is physically impossible to consummate the marriage.
You say this as if it is common practice for states to investigate fertility and force termination of the marriage onto couples which don’t comply by having children. That’s not the case in any state. …
According to your own blog post…
Thanks for reading my blog! However, I must admonish you for not reading it carefully. The point of that post is: let’s face it, there are bigots. … Nowhere did I state that it doesn’t matter what principled reasons a person might have. …
Active homosexuals have rejected the first law - the law of nature written in their bodies.
So, let’s be clear here. You’re not just saying that gay men and women should not get married. You’re also saying that they should never have sex, right? So your political position is that, in a perfect country, gay men would force themselves to have sex with women, and vice versa?
Without male/female, marriage can’t even be limited to two people, since the number two becomes arbitrary and meaningless.
This is an example of a slippery-slope argument. …. There’s the obvious fact that gender and number are two different things, and there’s clear legal precedent throughout California (and American) history that we can change one aspect of a law without changing every other.
Beyond that, there’s the practical consideration that, in this case, gay couples were seeking the same rights that everyone else has. Women have the right to marry men, but I did not–solely because of my gender. …
May 20th, 2008 at 12:34 pm
Phil,
Your response was somewhat lengthy, so I edited it down to what I consider to be its essentials and noted the ellisions made. You wrote:
You say this as if it is common practice for states to investigate fertility and force termination of the marriage onto couples which don’t comply by having children. That’s not the case in any state. …
No, I stated this because the law recognizes that an important purpose of marriage is the procreation of children. The state will not move to annul a marriage, but it will let you annul your marriage if you have those grounds.
You continued:
Nowhere did I state that it doesn’t matter what principled reasons a person might have.
Let me remind you that you also wrote: Maggie Gallagher, Skip Childs, and his wife are probably not anything like those people. But they were happy to sign their names alongside them.
When you place thoughtful people like Maggie Gallagher alongside people who really are bigots, you are, by implication, calling them bigots too. In doing so, you prove the point made above.
You asked if I thought homosexuals should force themselves to have sex with members of the opposite sex. Absolutely not. I don’t believe sex is appropriate for anyone outside of marriage.
You continued: There’s the obvious fact that gender and number are two different things, and there’s clear legal precedent throughout California (and American) history that we can change one aspect of a law without changing every other.
In the case of marriage, number and gender are related. One male and one female make two. Take the gender out of the equation and there’s no reason marriage should be limited to two because, as the Supreme Court has said, if “the right to marry is an integral component of an individual’s interest in personal autonomy … and of the liberty interest…” then number is just as arbitrary as gender.
So, I’m not sure quite why you think that one thing can be changed without changing any other. This development - that homosexual activists would try to redefine marriage - has been predicted for decades, and this case would never have been brought before Lawrence v. Texas. Polygamy will follow on its heels, whether it comes from Mormon sects or Muslims. Lawsuits have already been filed in Utah, and that tells us that more such lawsuits will follow shortly in California.
You then argue that homosexuals are only asking for the same rights everyone else has. Of course, that’s not true and the argument itself is specious. No person has ever had the right to marry another person of the same gender. Further, a homosexual person still has the right to contract a marriage with a person of the opposite sex, even though he may not wish to do so. I’m not suggesting that homosexuals do this, since it’s a disservice to all involved. That said, there are homosexual persons who, realizing that they are unfulfilled, seek to change their lives. Some of them are able to do so. Many more are not, for whatever reason. I am aware that this is very difficult. It is, nevertheless, possible.
May 20th, 2008 at 2:29 pm
The state will not move to annul a marriage, but it will let you annul your marriage if you have those grounds.
But the state already allows you to annul your marriage without those grounds, too. Every state in the union allows no-fault divorce. So, saying that a state allows you to end a marriage because of infertility is the same as saying a state allows you to end a marriage because you disagree about which Chipmunk is the cutest.
When you place thoughtful people like Maggie Gallagher alongside people who really are bigots, you are, by implication, calling them bigots too.
Actually, AP, they placed their names alongside bigots. I didn’t ask them to. It was their choice. My essay is making the argument “if you’re going to take the same side of the debate as bigots, it behooves you to explain how you’re different from them.”
…
I don’t believe sex is appropriate for anyone outside of marriage.
So you oppose same-sex marriage, and you also don’t think that anyone should ever have sex outside of marriage. So it is your belief that gay people should never, ever have sex?
The reason that the anti-gay marriage crowd sound like they’ve got some animus (besides the simple fact that they do) is because when they talk about gays, they are presented as an “other.” As in, “we, the good people, are heterosexual and we marry people of the opposite sex. What the gays do is wrong!” … Your writings on the issue of same-sex marriage treat gays as an “other,” and your political views afford them less recourse than racists afforded black Americans in the 1960s.
…
May 24th, 2008 at 9:51 pm
Phil wrote:
But the state already allows you to annul your marriage without those grounds, too. Every state in the union allows no-fault divorce.
A nullity of marriage is not a divorce, as any family law attorney will tell you. A divorce ends a valid marriage. A nullity of marriage says that the marriage was never validly contracted. Did I mention that I practiced family law for several years?
Having said that, the distinction between divorce and nullity has certainly been blurred on account of so-called no fault divorce. (What a misnomer! Someone is always “at fault”.) It is certainly easier today to get a divorce for no reason, than it is to get a nullity for a good reason.
And you are right to point out the connection between no-fault divorce and homosexual marriage. When you separate marriage from children, there’s no longer any reason to restrict marriage to couples who can naturally have children. Of course, as you might expect I was never an advocate of no-fault divorce and I would support its repeal.
The problem is that, in reality, you can’t separate marriage from children. No-fault divorce was sold by telling Americans that it would actually benefit children, rather than hurting them. That hasn’t turned out to be true, and there is plenty of evidence to prove it. Judith Wallerstein’s book, The Unexpected Legacy of Divorce is one among many that document the negative consequences to children. Did I mention that I practiced family law for several years? I saw some of that devastation first hand.
Phil continued:
Actually, AP, they placed their names alongside bigots.
Of course they didn’t. What you have done is erected a straw man in order to knock it down. People like Maggie Gallagher who are opposed to homosexual marriage are opposed out of principle, not out of hatred for homosexuals. Those principles include the proper purpose of marriage, the complementarity of the male/female union, and that children are best served by having both a mother and a father, among many others reasons. I certainly didn’t/don’t want any harm to come to my homosexual cousins. (Sadly, one of them died of AIDS at the age of 42. I still miss him.)
That said, you have admirably proved the point that The Reluctant Penitant and Ronald Rychlak make above.
The reason that the anti-gay marriage crowd sound like they’ve got some animus … is because when they talk about gays, they are presented as an “other.” (emphasis added)
It appears that the pot is calling the kettle black.
Phil, we are all human beings. We are all born equal. It’s what happens afterwards that differentiates us from one another. While we all deserve the respect due to us as members of the human race, we act differently. I certainly appreciate the fact that many homosexuals do not choose how they feel - but they do choose whether to act on those feelings. Actions that are not in keeping with the principles I try to live by, do not merit my respect - even if they do have my compassion.
I strongly disagree with your comparison of blackness and homosexuality, particularly because of the distinction between homosexual tendencies and actions. There is nothing anyone can do about being black. It is not an action to be black. Many black people would find such a comparison offensive. Those who have dared to speak out have, in some cases, been labeled bigots and removed from their jobs.
Which, once again, proves the point that The Reluctant Penitent and Ronald Rychlak make above.
June 3rd, 2008 at 11:41 pm
A nullity of marriage is not a divorce, as any family law attorney will tell you.
Mea culpa. I was using the term in the sense of its dictionary definition (to make void or to cancel), but your use of the legal definition is more appropriate for the discussion at hand.
Still, as we both acknowledge, every state in the union allows a marriage to be ended for any reason. The distinction is there, but the effects of annulment and divorce on a marriage are similar.
Of course they didn’t.
So, are you saying that there are no bigots who oppose gay marriage? Are you saying that anti-gay bigots don’t exist? Because I think it’s pretty obvious that they do. And I would bet a huge sum of money that their names are on the same petition that was signed by Maggie Gallagher and company.
…
If you’re going to stand on the same side of an issue as them, it’s not unreasonable for me to scrutinize your reasons, and it’s not unreasonable for me to expect you to explain how your reasons are different from theirs.
…
I strongly disagree with your comparison of blackness and homosexuality, particularly because of the distinction between homosexual tendencies and actions.
That is why I have not compared blackness to homosexuality. I am comparing mixed-race marriages to same-sex marriages because, while race is not a choice, it is a choice to marry someone of another race. (And, as you mentioned, it’s a choice to begin a relationship with someone of the same sex.)
Both you and I agree that that is not a bad choice, and that it is a choice that every human being should have the right to make. But the fact remains that it’s a choice, and it’s a choice that some people, for various reasons, actually do oppose.
Many black people would find such a comparison offensive.
And many wouldn’t. I would find the distaste for such a comparison to be offensive. And so on. That thinking leads nowhere.
June 4th, 2008 at 11:05 am
Phil wrote:
Still, as we both acknowledge, every state in the union allows a marriage to be ended for any reason.
Actually, so-called “no-fault” divorce allows a marriage to be ended for no reason. I concede the point that no-fault divorce supports the argument for homosexual marriage. After all, if marriage isn’t about children and it’s only about coupling, then gender (homosexual marriage) and number (polygamy) become arbitrary and irrelevant. This is exactly what happened.
That said, I think “no-fault” divorce is wrong for a host of reasons, many of them having to do with the impact of divorce on children and I do not think it should be lawful.
For what it’s worth, it’s always the children, the most vulnerable and voiceless in our society, who get the shaft. This is anything but fair to them.
Are you saying that anti-gay bigots don’t exist? Because I think it’s pretty obvious that they do. And I would bet a huge sum of money that their names are on the same petition that was signed by Maggie Gallagher and company.
Maggie Gallagher’s writings on the subject of homosexual marriage are very public and very well known. She has many reasons for opposing homosexual marriage which anyone can read. None of those reasons include hatred of homosexual people. I think that is all that needs to be said on this matter.
That is why I have not compared blackness to homosexuality. I am comparing mixed-race marriages to same-sex marriages because, while race is not a choice, it is a choice to marry someone of another race.
That distinction is disingenuous, at best. The law in some states, though certainly not all, prohibited marriages to anyone of a different race. The legal classification in those laws was made based on race - a characteristic that is immutable and irrelevant to marriage and producing chidlren. Race is not an action. Race is something that you are, not something that you do. The classification wasn’t made on “choice”.
Contrast this with homosexual activity - which is an action that one chooses to do. Actions, by definition, are not immutable characteristics.
So neither law makes a classification based on “choice”.
June 4th, 2008 at 5:13 pm
That distinction is disingenuous, at best.
I have to vehemently disagree with that. You are correct: race is something that you are, not something that you choose.
But so is gender. You don’t choose whether you are a man or a woman.
…
June 11th, 2008 at 9:32 pm
Yes, Phil, gender is immutable. But it’s not irrelevant to marriage and the creation/rearing of children.
Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse explains why:
September 20th, 2008 at 11:24 pm
[...] at the Catholic blog that I retrieved this information from: American Phoenix and the post titled: Fallout and Implications: Homosexual Marriage (Disclaimer: Although the information gathered from this page is useful, my views do not necessarily [...]
November 1st, 2008 at 8:17 pm
[...] Next Tuesday, November 4, 2008, will be one of the most consequential elections that this country has ever held - either at the state or the federal level. Here in California we have Propositions 4 and 8 on the ballot. Proposition 4 requires parental notification when a minor child seeks an abortion. Proposition 8 defines marriage as between one man and one woman. This proposition is in response to the California Supreme Court decision declaring homosexual marriage to be a constitutional right, in violation of the express wishes of the majority of Californians. I previously wrote about that decision, as well as its implications. [...]