RSS Feed
Print Story
E-mail Story
Marylee Shrider: Gay marriage ruling an act of 'judicial tyranny'
| Friday, May 30 2008 3:23 PM
Last Updated: Monday, Jun 2 2008 7:59 AM
I don't know what was more shocking about the recent state Supreme Court decision to redefine marriage — the reasoning behind the ruling or the justices’ blatant disregard for the will of the people.
BAKERSFIELD.COM HOT TOPICS:
Loading Stories
Advertisement
A lot of Californians are still reeling from the court's 4-3 decision to overturn Proposition 22, the measure that defined marriage as a union between one man and one woman and was supported in 2000 by 61 percent of state voters.
That definition, concluded the four, is unconstitutional.
The court's ruling begs a host of questions, not the least of which is why Californians should even bother to vote. With activist judges waiting in the wings to override votes and fabricate new rights, what's the point?
It's a valid question, but let’s not give up on the system just yet. Voters may have the chance to rectify this latest act of judicial tyranny when supporters of traditional marriage place a constitutional marriage amendment — now clearly a necessity — on the ballot in November.
In the meantime, same-sex marriages may take place as early as mid-June, while we of the slippery slope school are left to ponder the logic, or lack thereof, behind the court's ruling.
The main problem with the court's decision, besides its complete disregard for the democratic process, is that it doesn't expand marriage; it alters its core meaning.
That's one of the findings of Heritage Foundation researchers, who posted a succinct and insightful analysis of the ruling on the foundation Web site.
The ruling, they say, isn't about race or a particular people group, it's about the nature and purpose of marriage, which the court brushed aside.
“To redefine marriage so it's not intrinsically related to the relationship between fathers, mothers and children formally severs the institution from its nature and purpose, remaking the institution into a mere contract between any two individuals.”
The analysis also points out that “changing the definition of marriage has vast cultural consequences, including religious liberty implications.”
Those who doubt those implications are simply ignoring reality, says Greg Scott, spokesman for the Alliance Defense Fund, a conservative legal group.
“You will see all sorts of situations where the right to exercise our faith in ways we see fit are going to be seriously compromised,” he says.
Think he's exaggerating? It's already happening.
In New Mexico, Elaine Huguenin, a Christian and a professional wedding photographer, was hauled before the state's Human Rights Commission for declining to photograph a same-sex commitment ceremony.
In April, the commission found that Huguenin had violated the state's anti-discrimination law and directed her to pay more than $6,600 in attorney's fees to the two women who filed the complaint.
Last year in New Jersey, a lesbian couple sued the Methodist Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association after it refused, for religious reasons, to allow the couple to hold a civil union ceremony on the camp's property.
So far the camp has only lost tax-exempt status on part of its property, but the homosexual advocacy group that's threatening to appeal that consequence says it's “looking for a bigger victory.”
How big a victory the group will settle for is anyone's guess — utter destruction, perhaps?
Since gay marriage in California is now a “constitutional right,” what protection is there for those whose faith beliefs forbid such unions? What will priests, pastors, churches and private property owners be forced to condone in the years to come?
Through the years, the state of California has given to domestic partners every right currently enjoyed by married couples, but even that has failed to satisfy.
It is God's blessing they want, it is His approval they will have.
Or else. Opinions expressed in this column are those of Marylee Shrider, not The Californian. Her column appears Saturdays. Reach her at mshrider@bakersfield.com or 395-7474.