Yep. You read that right. The California Supreme Court, which, according to this article is “Republican-dominated,” overturned the state marriage laws which prohibited same sex marriage.
The California Supreme Court has six Republican appointees and one Democrat. Scholars have described the court under the leadership of Chief Justice Ronald M. George as cautious and moderately conservative.
Wow. That’s pretty amazing, don’t you think?
Can we trade some of our Virginia Republicans for some California ones? 😉
VIVIAN J. PAIGE | All Politics is Local 
“If [marriage] were [really… about sex or about procreation], we would outlaw sex outside of marriage….”
VA Code § 18.2-344
The problem is, as you point out, government is in the civil union business. Although it is illegal to get married, or to perform a marriage, without a licence (§ 20-13), marriage is not a government institution, but a religious one. Marriage existed before government, and will when government is no more.
Many people consider homosexual acts sinful, and government sanction of homosexual unions as sactioning sinful activity. The question arises, why do homosexuals give a damn whether they have government sanction or not? The answer is, of course, that the government provides benefits based on that sanction and forces private companies to do so as well, and homosexuals want those benefits. That’s why atheists go through the process with a Justice of the Peace, too, instead of just shacking up. Never mind that cohabitation is also illegal (§ 18.2-345).
So the next question is, what government interest is served in providing, or forcing others to provide, these benefits?
I do not have an answer to that one. If there is no such government interest, then the government should get out of the marriage business altogether. In the case of polygamy, at least, the government intrusion is a clear violation of the right to excercise one’s religion.
vjp – Let me add to Anon E. Mouse had to say.
Many of the worse sins of the past were imposed by government. These sins resulted from one group trying to impose its will on another. Marriage, as it now exists, recognizes the physical reality that it takes two people of the opposite sex to give birth to a child. Government instituted marriage to protect the rights of children, to provide a safe haven for their growth. Some imposition is involved. However, we have anoverriding concern and justification, the rights children.
Civil unions is simply an imposition. To make a small minority feel accepted, we would force everyone to treat their perversion as a marriage. Why? We want people to feel good about themselves?
I sympathasize with this desire to help people feel good about themselves. Nonetheless, what is the point in getting government involved in such matters? If you think it important to help a same-sex couple celebrate its “marriage,” that is your choice. Why do you have to make it my choice too?
The problem , Mouse, is that the Virginia code is full of stuff that is never enforced. The cohabitation laws are a perfect example. The only reason they remain in the code is to make some folks feel good. (Aren’t the sodomy laws still there, despite the Lawrence ruling?)
I was reading an article today about this ruling and it said that CA threw out it laws against different races marrying 19 years before Loving. I wonder if it will be 19 years before the SCOTUS takes up this as well.
Tom – if civil unions are an imposition, then I suggest the government get out of the business. And remove all of the benefits of such unions from our laws, particularly our tax code. Level the playing field. Treat everyone the same.
“[The] Virginia code is full of stuff that is never enforced.”
Quite true, Vivian. My point was that the state HAS outlawed the some of the things you say would be outlawed if “marriage really [were] about sex or about procreation.”
(The sodomy laws, as far as I know, have been repealed. I could not find them in an on-line search of the VA Code.)
“I wonder if it will be 19 years before the SCOTUS takes up this as well.”
The concern that the Supremes will take such as case is the impetus for a Marriage Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
I would love for the government to “get out of the business… [and] remove all of the benefits of such unions from our laws, particularly our tax code.” Of course, the easiest way to do that is to repeal the 16th Amendment and impose a federal sales tax. 🙂
The tax code is only the most obvious bias, but there are literally over a thousand others. (pdf)
“In addition, the CA decision is immoral.”
The courts are not supposed to rule on morality, but on the Law — with the highest Law being the Constitution of the State (for state courts) or of the United States (for federal courts). If the elected government has a convincing reason to believe that a moral law (such as the anti-sodomy law) also has a public benefit, then by all means they should pass that law and enforce it. But that is not enforcing morality, but merely an overlap of morality with public benefit.
“It is an open secret that the CA court overstepped its authority.”
I would like to think so, too, but I do not. “Everyone thinks so, even if they won’t admit it,” is not evidence. One of the rules of logic is that, “Gratuitous assertions may be gratuitously dismissed.” I do not like homosexual marriage or civil unions, but we must make coherent, logical arguments.
“Before birth control, people had large families.”
Well, they had many children, anyway. The “replacement birth rate” is now 2.1 children per couple. 200 years ago, it was probebly 5 or 6.
Again, Tom, I’m afraid I must say that, while I oppose homosexual marriage and civil unions, your arguments about “protecting children” is painfully weak. If you could prove such harm, that would only get you to the point of not allowing homosexual couples to adopt. Unfortunately, there is enough evidence of step-fathers’ abusing step-daughters that the same argument can clearly be used to outlaw remarriage when children are involved — or to require that the father be given custody if the mother remarries. In any case, it is not enough to outlaw homosexual unions.
My objection is in the granting of government benefits, and in the governments’ forcing companies to grant such benefits, against the moral objections of the taxpayers and stockholders. Just get the government out of it entirely, and I don’t care if homosexuals can find some Unitarian minister to marry them and confer the blessings of the Great Fuzzy Teddy Bear upon their union.
Vivian, I’ve read that before, but it is well worth the re-post. Thanks.