As with all lengthy written decisions of the Court, their readership is bleak, and bleaker still—to be counted on two hands—are the discriminating readers of them. Less than that meager sum is the number of readers having the audacity to engage in an intellectual dialogue with a monumental writ beyond a quip around the water cooler or on an internet blog.
Such is the decision handed down today to the people of California by their Supreme Court: a masterfully presented illogical piece of work that glorifies and justifies homosexuality, and a work that will gather dust and a dozen internet ‘hits’ while the bleary eyed majority of us still answer the homosexual marriage question with, “Why not?”
*** Read the California Supreme Court same sex marriage opinion here: (pdf file, findlaw.com) ***
First, that isn’t an answer. Second, it begs the question because it presumes there is no merit to the question of same sex marriage. The question has merit precisely because it is asked, and society’s unintelligent indifference towards same sex marriage belies the overwhelming amount of reason denouncing the practice! Therefore, we have a dialogue, to which few will acknowledge or participate in.
The California Supreme Court starts the argument off by pointing out the inequities of human union:
The question we must address is whether, under these circumstances [designating “marriage” for opposite sex couples and “domestic partnership” for same sex couples], the failure to designate the official relationship of same-sex couples as marriage violates the California Constitution.
This is logically the question that arises when governments recognize same sex unions in similar fashion to opposite sex unions. In California, as of 2007, the rights and responsibilities of “domestic partnership” and “marriage” unions are exactly the same, so the argument on this point is over the differing nomenclature that apply separately but equally to the two classes of union. If same sex unions are as good as opposite sex unions then, according to the Supreme Court, they should have equal access to the title of “marriage”, since
…in addition to the potential harm flowing from the lesser stature that is likely to be afforded to the family relationships of same-sex couples by designating them domestic partnerships, there exists a substantial risk that a judicial decision upholding the differential treatment of opposite-sex and same-sex couples would be understood as validating a more general proposition that our state by now has repudiated: that it is permissible, under the law, for society to treat gay individuals and same-sex couples differently from, and less favorably than, heterosexual individuals and opposite-sex couples.
Very true. The validity of same sex relationships in California has been bolstered by the “domestic partnership” legislation passed in 2000 and “sexual orientation” wording added to hate crime legislation. And in the merely adequate thinking of Californians, the widespread nature of homosexual relationships do indeed occur and are sanctioned by law, and therefore the questioning of it has been eradicated, or rather, downgraded to what they call “hate speech”, so infallible is the practice of a man preoccupied with another man’s rear. Such is the power of California logic. But the Supreme Court revives the question of homosexuality and its bedfellows, giving this powerful account:
We emphasize that our conclusion that the constitutional right to marry properly must be interpreted to apply to gay individuals and gay couples does not mean that this constitutional right similarly must be understood to extend to polygamous or incestuous relationships. Past judicial decisions explain why our nation’s culture has considered the latter types of relationships inimical to the mutually supportive and healthy family relationships promoted by the constitutional right to marry. (See, e.g., Reynolds v. United States (1878) 98 U.S. 145, 165-166; Davis v. Beason (1890) 133 U.S. 333, 341; People v. Scott (2007) 157 Cal.App.4th 189, 192-194; State v. Freeman (Ohio Ct.App. 2003) 801 N.E.2d 906, 909; Smith v. State (Tenn.Crim.App. 1999) 6 S.W.3d 512, 518-520.)
This is how all of these judgment tomes are written, like a Wikipedia entry, by justifying an argument through abbreviating where support for it might be found, which, if researched themselves, reference still others on the same argument so that an abyss of citations is created that can make a case for just about anything. I have a sinking feeling that if the Supreme Court wanted to make a compelling case for polygamy and incest, a legal aide of the Court could type it up in an hour.
The extension of marital rights to polygamous, incestuous, pederastic, or bestial relationships is a powerful argument that the Supreme Court overlooks here by shirking off a few case related references. If the argument is that those in a same sex union ‘love’ each other—a word rarely defined or simply justified in whatever the context by the saying of it—as those of the opposite sex do in preparation for marriage, then shouldn’t the loving relationship between a man and child, a father and daughter, and a man and two women be permitted their sexual privies under a government sanctioned “marriage”?
The Court enlightens us on their far reaching definition of love and marriage:
…in contrast to earlier times, our state now recognizes that an individual’s capacity to establish a loving and long-term committed relationship with another person and responsibly to care for and raise children does not depend upon the individual’s sexual orientation, and, more generally, that an individual’s sexual orientation — like a person’s race or gender — does not constitute a legitimate basis upon which to deny or withhold legal rights.
That’s it, then.
Except for the fact that there are innumerable studies and psychological, philosophical, and religious writings to show that children not raised in a loving home of a married man and woman is detrimental to them.
The error of equating race and gender discrimination with sexual orientation discrimination is an exceptionally glaring one. Race and gender are genetically and biologically based standards that establish a human being, while sexual orientation, or more precisely, non-heterosexual sexual activity, is an extremely vague characteristic that has no immutable genetic or biological foundation.
An American Indian or a female can never stop being of that race or gender, and because those are integral unchanging human qualities there should be no discrimination against them because of it. In contrast, sexual activity, especially non-heterosexual activity, is an action that is performed, like hanging tinsel, and is subject to the same scrutiny that other acts are under—some of which have been declared unlawful.
Somewhere along in the California Supreme Court’s Wikipedia entry buried in a footnote on page 117, there is the mention of adopted children:
Because the governing California statutes permit same-sex couples to adopt and raise children and additionally draw no distinction between married couples and domestic partners with regard to the legal rights and responsibilities relating to children raised within each of these family relationships, the asserted difference in the effect on children does not provide a justification for the differentiation in nomenclature set forth in the challenged statutes.
The Supreme Court is absolutely correct here, based on the underlying assumption that there is no significant difference between adopted child requirements of same or opposite sex households. However, undoubtedly, the same sex adoption laws are likely riddled with inaccuracies, assumptions, and poor arguments, but it doesn’t really matter—no one reads them.
It is generally the same with people on hearing of legal matters that seem so distant and irrelevant to their own lives: “Why not?” they say. The apathy and ignorance that so permeate everyday conversation and the media in the U.S. reveal an absence of critical thinking skills which, if ever present in the most minimal way, are inevitably hammered flat. As any school teacher or politician will tell you, once your critical thinking skills are worn away you can be convinced of anything.
By allowing same sex couples to adopt, the State of California has given them the same foothold as opposite sex couples in raising children and in the definition of family. If same sex couples have unrestrained access to raising children and are included in the definition of family, then they possess all that is needed to finalize their mysterious loving union with a government sanctioned “marriage”.
In other words, the California Supreme Court has handed down to the stoned people of California a fiction based work and pawned it off as a legitimate legal opinion.
* Note: We at outragedrichard.com have attempted to tackle the various arguments concerning homosexuality, Bad Arguments For and Against Sexual Perversity Utilizing Homosexuality as the Whipping Post, and if you are able to contribute a scruple of thought to this compilation please contact us.
