Four Justices on the California Supreme Court felt that their prejudges out weighted the Constitution and the legal and Constitutional cast votes of 4 million Californians and these judges created out of whole cloth an Orwellian oddity, legal homosexuality.
Chief Justice Ronald George writing for the 4 person majority on a split 4-3 court admitted in this opinion that there is and was no basis for their ruling in California Constitutional law he wrote:
First, we must determine the nature and scope of the “right to marry” –a right that past cases establish as one of the fundamental constitutional rights embodied in the California Constitution. Although, as an historical matter, civil marriage and the rights associated with it traditionally have been afforded only to opposite-sex couples…”—Justice Ronald M. GeorgeThen Justice George goes through what dissenting Justice Marvin R. Baxter called legal jujitsu to contort legal reasoning in order to justify the 4 majority’s decision to go against what historically civil marriage has always been understood to be in California Constitutional law, a relationship between a man and a woman.
Justice George then reaches outside of the Constitution and the Court’s own rightful authority to invent an abomination to law, tradition and society, homosexual marriage. This is the heart of the issue of California’s Proposition 8!
[A] bare majority of this court, not satisfied with the pace of democratic change now abruptly forestalls that process and substitutes, by judicial fiat, its own social policy views for those expressed by the People themselves.Thomas Jefferson knowing that this day was inevitable for the United States of America wrote in his Bill establishing Religious Freedom in Virginia:
Undeterred by the strong weight of state and federal law and authority, 4 the majority invents a new constitutional right, immune from the ordinary process of legislative consideration.
The majority finds that our Constitution suddenly demands no less than a permanent redefinition of marriage, regardless of the popular will.--Marvin R. Baxter, Justice in dissent
[T]he opinions of men are not the object of civil government, nor under its jurisdiction; that to suffer the civil magistrate to intrude his powers into the field of opinion and to restrain the profession or propagation of principles on supposition of their ill tendency is a dangerous fallacy, which at once destroys all religious liberty, because he being of course judge of that tendency will make his opinions the rule of judgment, and approve or condemn the sentiments of others only as they shall square with or differ from his own; that it is time enough for the rightful purposes of civil government for its officers to interfere when principles break out into overt acts against peace and good order; and finally, that truth is great and will prevail if left to herself; that she is the proper and sufficient antagonist to error, and has nothing to fear from the conflict unless by human interposition disarmed of her natural weapons, free argument and debate; errors ceasing to be dangerous when it is permitted freely to contradict them. —Thomas Jefferson, Bill Establishing Religious Freedom in the State of Virginia, 1786Jefferson argued that opinions, including those of religion, but nevertheless men’s opinions should not be the object of civil government.
In other words whatever your opinion is on homosexuality, it should not be made a government matter. However that is exactly what proponents if homosexual rights and homosexual marriage have done they have used government courts to impose their opinions on the rest of society.
Yet in one of their latest Orwellian styled commercials against proposition 8 they say exactly the oppose when they claim that we should keep government out of all of our lives and vote no on proposition 8. In fact a vote YES on 8 would keep government out of our lives!(see video)
This commercial is so Orwellian in its assault against truth and reasoning that we need to deconstruct it.
It’s four points that 1) proponents of proposition 8 are using scare tactics, 2) the courts ruling will not affect church tax status, 3) the courts ruling will not affect teaching in schools 4) and the statement to keep government out of our lives are all patently false.
First no scare tactics are being used. Proponents of 8 point to the fact that Massachusetts the first state in which the courts imposed legal homosexual mock marriages has in fact implemented many of the anti-traditional family measures that proponents of 8 warn against.
In New Jersey's anti-discrimination laws require those offering goods, services, and facilities to the general public to allow any accommodation, service, benefit, or privilege to an individual without discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. The state of New Jersey granted legal status to homosexual civil unions in February. (see post)
Second, homosexuals are already going after bible publishers with law suits attempting to get any negative connotation of homosexuality removed from the bible therefore it’s well within reason to anticipate law suits based on hate speech and hate crimes legislation against churches that preach directly from the scriptures concerning homosexuality.
Third, according to Fox News and the San Francisco gate; First-graders in San Francisco took a field trip to City Hall to celebrate the marriage of their lesbian teacher on Friday, but opponents of same-sex marriage in the state say the field trip was an attempt to “indoctrinate” the students, the San Francisco Chronicle reported.
The field trip was suggested by a parent at the Creative Arts Charter School, and the school said the trip, where students tossed rose petals on their teacher and her wife as they left City Hall, was academically relevant.
"It really is what we call a teachable moment," said Liz Jaroslow, the school’s interim director, according to the newspaper. She said same-sex marriage had historic significance. "I think I'm well within the parameters."
Well within what parameters? The California Court’s ruling that homosexual mock marriages are legal that’s what parameters!
I would say that what is being taught in California’s schools has already changed.(see here) and (here)
Fourth, proposition 22 which the California Supreme Court struck down was the attempt of the people to keep the government out of our lives and proposition 8 only reinstates what the government courts struck down.
California’s government court’s ruling which created homosexual mock marriages is government intrusion into our lives not the people’s proposition 8!
Finally Newt Gingrich lays out what this all means so clearly that not even the most confused Liberal could misunderstand. They may not agree but the Orwellian veil is now removed from this matter. (see video)
All the Presidential candidates agree on this one matter, Homosexual mock marriages are not good for America. (see video)
Proponents of homosexuality have used Orwellian language transfused will legalities to create legal arguments to justify and give legitimacy to an age old taboo.
In two thousand years of human history there has not been legalized homosexuality mandated and promoted by the government yet in the 21st century four judges; Ronald M. George, Carlos R. Moreno, Kathryn Mickle Werdegar and Joyce Kennard made it so just as Jefferson said that they would make, “[their] opinions the rule of judgment” thus these four judges condemned the sentiments of 4 million California voters because the voters beliefs regarding homosexuality did not square with their own beliefs about homosexuality.
Proposition 8 is a vote against judicial tyranny and judicial oligarchy. Let the People’s will stand against Government intrusion vote YES on Proposition 8!