Tuesday, February 24, 2004
For some reason, I seem to be very interested in the San Francisco issue, where a judge has refused to order an injuction halting the gay marriages (illegal in California via voter referdendum).
This is partly because the issue is so polarizing. It's also an interesting issue because there are so many stupid people involved in this process.
Take the mayor of San Francisco, for instance. He started this whole mess under the pretext that he was merely obeying the California Constitution, one which does not support the man and woman definition of marriage due to equal rights violations.
First, let's see if he has a point.
The California Constitution has only one clause that could possibly support Mayor Gavin Newsom's argument; Article I, Section 7b. It states the following...
"A citizen or class of citizens may not be granted privileges
or immunities not granted on the same terms to all citizens.
Privileges or immunities granted by the Legislature may be altered or
revoked."
Does this clause give homosexuals the right to marry in California?
The answer is no.
Hetereosexuals are granted the privilage of marriage on the exact same terms as homosexuals. That is, they may only marry one member of the opposite sex. This definition of marriage, passed into law directly by the people of California is enforced upon all citizens. Therefore, it is not an equal rights violation.
The more obvious problem with Newsom's actions is that the governing body he uses to defend them- the California Constitution- is the very body that clearly forbids his behavior.
Article 3, Section 3.5:
"An administrative agency, including an administrative
agency created by the Constitution or an initiative statute, has no
power:
(a) To declare a statute unenforceable, or refuse to enforce a
statute, on the basis of it being unconstitutional unless an
appellate court has made a determination that such statute is
unconstitutional;
(b) To declare a statute unconstitutional;
(c) To declare a statute unenforceable, or to refuse to enforce a
statute on the basis that federal law or federal regulations prohibit
the enforcement of such statute unless an appellate court has made a
determination that the enforcement of such statute is prohibited by
federal law or federal regulations."
This leaves Newsom not a leg to stand on.
It also invalidates the entire homosexual lobby's movement in that state.
Their only option left is to declare that the government of California has no right to define an institution for its constituents, even if that definition was given by its own people.
There is absolutely no legal precedent for that judgement.
If the Supreme Court of California chooses to ignore all of this, and declare the "one man, one woman" definition of marriage to be unconstitutional, severe consequences will result. I know certain lobbyists don't want to acknowledge that their actions have legal consequences, and that using the argument that this movement will lead to bigamy is a "red herring". I also know that these people are selfish.
Throwing out the right of a government to define marriage will make marriage meaningless, for if one of its terms can be redefined, then ALL of its terms can be redefined. This isn't crazy talk. I'm not even moralizing here. I'm stating that the people of California will no longer have a legal basis from which to defend itself from bigamist and incestual marriage. For if "one man, one woman" violates equal rights, then so does "two people." That, too, discriminates against one man, two woman groups. Or one woman, two man groups. Or three guys, five girls.
Look, I have stated before that I support gay marriage. I believe that gay couples, if truly committed to the idea of monogomy and the family unit, can be a boon to society. However, I cannot and will not support this perversion of the law.
Marriage isn't a right. It's a way to encourage relationships a society finds healthy and worthwhile, and discourage those it does not. That's right, society is discouraging homosexuality. It has every right to do so. Homosexuals have not yet proven to the people that their relationships are equal to hetereosexual relationships in terms of what they can contribute to society.
If they want to do so, they're going to have to show that they respect the institution. If two gay people want to commit to each other while still leading an open sexual life, that couple is seeking to enter into the wrong institution. If another gay couple is trying to get married so that they will have society's approval, that's still the wrong reason.
However, if two homosexuals truly love each other, want to join their lives together forever while forsaking all others, and start a family out of love and not to show that they can, then may those couples have entrance into marriage, for they have a true need for it.
Of course, we could always redefine marriage to eliminate all that unneccesary "forsake all others" nonsense. After all, that's denying Hugh Hefner the right to marry his six girlfriends if he so chooses.
That would be intolerant of us.
This is partly because the issue is so polarizing. It's also an interesting issue because there are so many stupid people involved in this process.
Take the mayor of San Francisco, for instance. He started this whole mess under the pretext that he was merely obeying the California Constitution, one which does not support the man and woman definition of marriage due to equal rights violations.
First, let's see if he has a point.
The California Constitution has only one clause that could possibly support Mayor Gavin Newsom's argument; Article I, Section 7b. It states the following...
"A citizen or class of citizens may not be granted privileges
or immunities not granted on the same terms to all citizens.
Privileges or immunities granted by the Legislature may be altered or
revoked."
Does this clause give homosexuals the right to marry in California?
The answer is no.
Hetereosexuals are granted the privilage of marriage on the exact same terms as homosexuals. That is, they may only marry one member of the opposite sex. This definition of marriage, passed into law directly by the people of California is enforced upon all citizens. Therefore, it is not an equal rights violation.
The more obvious problem with Newsom's actions is that the governing body he uses to defend them- the California Constitution- is the very body that clearly forbids his behavior.
Article 3, Section 3.5:
"An administrative agency, including an administrative
agency created by the Constitution or an initiative statute, has no
power:
(a) To declare a statute unenforceable, or refuse to enforce a
statute, on the basis of it being unconstitutional unless an
appellate court has made a determination that such statute is
unconstitutional;
(b) To declare a statute unconstitutional;
(c) To declare a statute unenforceable, or to refuse to enforce a
statute on the basis that federal law or federal regulations prohibit
the enforcement of such statute unless an appellate court has made a
determination that the enforcement of such statute is prohibited by
federal law or federal regulations."
This leaves Newsom not a leg to stand on.
It also invalidates the entire homosexual lobby's movement in that state.
Their only option left is to declare that the government of California has no right to define an institution for its constituents, even if that definition was given by its own people.
There is absolutely no legal precedent for that judgement.
If the Supreme Court of California chooses to ignore all of this, and declare the "one man, one woman" definition of marriage to be unconstitutional, severe consequences will result. I know certain lobbyists don't want to acknowledge that their actions have legal consequences, and that using the argument that this movement will lead to bigamy is a "red herring". I also know that these people are selfish.
Throwing out the right of a government to define marriage will make marriage meaningless, for if one of its terms can be redefined, then ALL of its terms can be redefined. This isn't crazy talk. I'm not even moralizing here. I'm stating that the people of California will no longer have a legal basis from which to defend itself from bigamist and incestual marriage. For if "one man, one woman" violates equal rights, then so does "two people." That, too, discriminates against one man, two woman groups. Or one woman, two man groups. Or three guys, five girls.
Look, I have stated before that I support gay marriage. I believe that gay couples, if truly committed to the idea of monogomy and the family unit, can be a boon to society. However, I cannot and will not support this perversion of the law.
Marriage isn't a right. It's a way to encourage relationships a society finds healthy and worthwhile, and discourage those it does not. That's right, society is discouraging homosexuality. It has every right to do so. Homosexuals have not yet proven to the people that their relationships are equal to hetereosexual relationships in terms of what they can contribute to society.
If they want to do so, they're going to have to show that they respect the institution. If two gay people want to commit to each other while still leading an open sexual life, that couple is seeking to enter into the wrong institution. If another gay couple is trying to get married so that they will have society's approval, that's still the wrong reason.
However, if two homosexuals truly love each other, want to join their lives together forever while forsaking all others, and start a family out of love and not to show that they can, then may those couples have entrance into marriage, for they have a true need for it.
Of course, we could always redefine marriage to eliminate all that unneccesary "forsake all others" nonsense. After all, that's denying Hugh Hefner the right to marry his six girlfriends if he so chooses.
That would be intolerant of us.
Comments:
Post a Comment
