Comments re: California (w/Addendum)

First off, although I agree that the California “gay marriage” ruling is woefully wrong, I don’t “get” the hue and cry of outrage over “activist judges”. The genius of our tripartite, constitutional form of government has been it’s ability to balance majority rule with minority protection. Obviously it has been a 200+ years work in progress, but just as obviously it has succeeded better here than anywhere else in the world.

(Correct me if I’m mis-remembering, but in the tragic Terry Schiavo case wasn’t it pro-life conservatives who were desperately seeking judicial activists to legislate social policy?)

So, the argument that “how dare a few judges presume to think they know better than the (x) million Californians who passed the defense of marriage amendment?” is, to my mind, the weakest of arguments against their action.  Protecting minority rights against majoritarian abuse is an important part of their job.

Having said that, I absolutely agree with the three dissenting judges (including one who openly admitted to being pro-gay marriage) who said the court had overstepped it’s authority, that this is, as it has always been, a matter for the people to decide through their legislators or, in the case of California, direct ballot initiative.

“But what about the courts’ role in defending the rights of the minority? You acknowledged that role, and clearly this is a case of a minority being deprived of equal rights with the majority.”

No, it isn’t. There is not, and never has been a universal right to marry. Heterosexuals do not have, and never have had, the right to marry whomever they want. There are, and always have been, restrictions made on the basis of age (no minors), number (only one… at at a time), mental fitness (however that’s defined), even physical fitness(ability to consummate the marriage sexually), as well as the universally accepted restriction on gender (the other one, not your own).

So where did these restrictions come from, how did they arise? Well, in no case were they imposed from above by the decree of a wise Philosopher King, or a Council of (black-robed) Elders; rather, the definitions of marriage and family arose from millennia of human experience regarding what works and what doesn’t work in creating and maintaining strong, healthy, successful societies.

What is most contemptible and offensive is the shamelessly pandering demagoguery engaged in by the likes of Los Angeles mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, who was quoted as saying “This is about people, and the right for people to love who they want”. How does he live with himself, face himself in the mirror each morning; how does he contemplate looking back at the end of his career, or life, at such a legacy of lies?

There was not a single paragraph, line or word of this case that had anything to do with anyone’s right to “love who they want”. Love whomever you want! Knock yourself out! Good Lord, when has anyone anywhere ever thought there was any chance of regulating who one can love? But there has always been a recognized State (i.e., societal) interest in defining and regulating the conditions of marriage, for the benefit of every member of society, young or old, married or unmarried.

Ech, enough, time to run. Before I do, though, I need to put in a word about/for my oldest daughter. She has been active in the S. California GLAAD – Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation- not because of her own orientation, but because of her sense of fairness and opposition to injustice. Her motivations are entirely honorable (as I am sure is true for many or most of those on that side), so I can’t think of any reason not to be completely proud of her for that. Good for you, sweetheart!

I’m not sure she knew that- I’m afraid I may have offended her a few years back when she first told me, during a phone conversation, about her becoming involved with GLAAD. I was siezed with a fit of laughter, which she probably took to be disrespectful or demeaning, and it really wasn’t. Fallen and sinful man that I am, I was uncharitably amused at the thought of the consternation this had to have caused her mother. Not nice… but understandable, given the circumstances.

I see from the Comments section of her blog that her mother’s distress continues. And here again my daughter brings up an argument frequently cited by supporters of gay marriage, that seems to be considered almost a trump card by them, but which seems to me an utter non-sequiter. That is, the fact that in the past the courts have struck down miscegenation laws barring inter-racial marriage. Unjust restrictions based on race were struck down, therefore unjust restrictions on gender can be struck down.

The problem with that, of course, is that miscegenation laws were an extreme historical aberration. Although all human societies have demonstrated an understandable ethnocentric preference for in-group marriage, interracial marriages have always been (more or less) accepted- and have not been condemned or banned by any religious faith tradition. Moses himself, for crying out loud, married a black woman! Only in very recent history, in an extremely limited geographic area, were race-based restrictions enforced- contrary to the entire tradition of human experience up to that time. By striking down those laws, the courts acknowledged and affirmed the judgement of human tradition, which held that race was not an factor germane to the nature of marriage.

Gender, in contrast, obviously is germane, as it always, at all times and in all places, has been. For the California court to overlook that is for them to declare the universal judgement of humanity to be irrelevant. “Buddhists? Homophobes! Hindus? Homophobes! Christians? Homophobes! Moslems? Homophobes! All people everywhere at all times prior to us- ignorant homophobes!”
(Addendum: after listening to Dennis Prager, I realize that the examples listed here are all from religious teachings.  The same understanding of the definition of marriage has been held by non-religious ethical and secular schools of thought as well- Taoists, Confucianists, Humanists of the Enlightenment, Socialists, Communists… all were apparently ethical midgets as well, inferior to the great souls of this, the “greatest”, most compassionate and truly enlightened people in all human history).

Can hubris be any more mind-boggling than that?

Lord have mercy.