Action Item - Marriage - 3

Action Item – Marriage – 3
cinops be gone Wednesday, June 11, 2008
Calif. Earthquake Shakes Bedrock of Society by J.Boom, from www.ccgaction.org
“On May 15, 2008, the California Supreme Court changed the legal meaning of marriage. By a narrow margin of 4-3, the Court decreed that the State of California must allow same-sex couples to have the title and legal status of “marriage.”
This decision was not about practical benefits of marriage, such as health insurance, pensions or hospital visitations. Through domestic partnerships, homosexuals and bisexuals already have access to virtually all of the rights and responsibilities of marriage. Instead, the question was about one issue and one issue only: the meaning of marriage itself.

Every civilization and world religion has defined marriage as a union between a man and a woman. This global practice reflects a basic fact of life: only a union between a man and a woman can provide a child with both a mother and a father. In fact, only a man and a woman can naturally make a child at all. And yet, in a stunning example of ideology trumping scientific fact and common sense, the Court ruled that taking account of gender differences in the formation of households is a form of bigotry. In fact, according to the four justices, giving special legal recognition to the union of woman and a man is similar to racism.

The Court ruled that giving same-sex couples the benefits of marriage through domestic partnerships, while keeping the name of marriage for unions of husbands and wives, is “separate but equal” discrimination, like Jim Crow segregation. Instead, the State of California must give marriage licenses to any combination of two adults, regardless of their gender. This forces the state to ignore the vital and unique benefits of the marital union of a man and a woman, such as providing children with both a father and a mother.

The judicial activism directly contradicts the democratic process. In 2000 the voters of California approved Proposition 22, which reinforced existing state law defining marriage as the union between a man and woman. This was not an isolated, one-act event, but part of the larger process of democracy. Many people are honestly trying to find the best solution to marriage controversies. They are compassionate to the problems of gays and lesbians, but they do not want to upend humanity’s oldest institution.

In 2003 the state legislature created domestic partnerships for same-sex couples. This legislation was a wrong policy, since it weakened the uniqueness of marriage as an institution, but it was an attempt to find a compromise solution. The state legislature has twice voted to overturn Proposition 22, but the governor vetoed this both times. Both the legislators and governor are elected officials.

Proponents of same-sex “marriage” could have tried to continue through the legislative process, or they could have brought out their own ballot measure. This is a messy process, but its democracy. Instead of allowing the people of California to work out a solution for themselves, these four justices imposed their revolutionary definition of marriage on the state. Even many proponents of same-sex “marriage” think making this drastic change without the organic development of popular consensus was wrong…. Supporters of a natural marriage culture have gathered enough signatures to put an initiative defining marriage as the union between a man and a woman on the November ballot…. Through education and working together, the genuine meaning of marriage must be restored."
George H. Kubeck, Duplicate and or translate into Spanish and Vietnamese.