jump to navigation

Californication Declares Gay Marriage a “fundamental right” May 16, 2008

Posted by Administrator in Cultural Pessimism, Idiots, Law, Liberal Hypocrisy, Liberal self-loathing.
trackback

(MSM article)  I’m only going to comment thus:

  • via Ace of Spades, it becomes increasingly troubling when an activist state Supreme Court overturns the will of the people by finding a “fundamental right” that has no real basis in law.  As Ace says, the Californication SSC really ought to change its motto to, “L’etat, c’est moi.”  What is the point of elected governing bodies when sovereign judicial bodies can then usurp legislative authority to itself, and then give no recourse to higher appeal?  To quote:

It is, in legal terms, an ipse dixit, an “it’s this way because I say it is,” and you can always tell when a court is resorting to ipse dixit because it stops citing the actual constitution and previous decisions and begins speaking of hitherto-unknown “fundamental rights.” How did they become “fundamental rights”? Oh, they always were. Just no one ever noticed.

  • I find Anchoress, as usual, to be eminently sane and reasonable when examining this topic:
    • I frankly think it might be a better thing if the religious sacrament of marriage were separated from the legal action of marriage, and vice versa. Perhaps it would be wise for us to adopt the practice in France, where the civil marriage takes place at City Hall, and the Sacramental marriage at the church.A civil union is a mere legality. It can be defined any way the state wishes, but it leaves the church out of the question of who may “legally” be married and protects her ability to bestow sacraments and practice the faith free from “discrimination” lawsuits and the inevitable punitive damages that can materially destroy her.

      Depending on how the courts go, we could conceivably see this issue coming up in a lot of states, and then there will be a press for federal recognition of gay marriage. If the church does not take steps to protect herself now, by advocating this sort of separation of duties and intents, she will be spending a lot of time and money (and losing tax-free status, of course) fighting for the right to practice the faith without government interference.

      I actually wrote something touching on this possibility last summer.

      I have no problem with civil unions (my line gets drawn whenever someone implies that a church must go against its own theology and sacramental understanding of marriage), so I can understand where Don Surber is coming from in his post, and I agree with him about the “zero-tolerance strain” of liberalism that too often shuts down an exchange of ideas – but didn’t the “faith based” group essentially show a similar tendency toward exclusion of non-conforming thought?

The Church (as in all the Christian denominations) need to follow this advice.  “render unto Caesar” his need to legalize a union.  And if Caesar decides that sodomites need to be recognized too, then so be it, I guess.  But the sacrament of marriage needs the freedom to be governed from within.

Otherwise, we are going to open ourselves to the Tyranny of Tolerance, as the State then intervenes in the Church, demanding that it give the same recognition to ancient Roman excesses that the State already has.  And that is when I start yearning for access to the other worlds imagined in Larry Niven’s Known Space future history.

All very depressing.  Not at all surprising.  But depressing.

Advertisements

Comments»

1. Sophist FCD - June 4, 2008

Otherwise, we are going to open ourselves to the Tyranny of Tolerance, as the State then intervenes in the Church, demanding that it give the same recognition to ancient Roman excesses that the State already has.

Dude, y’all need to take a deep breath and unclench. As long as the First Amendment and groups like the ACLU exist, no church anywhere in the country will even be forced to perform a single marriage they do not want to. There is basically nobody on the left who wants that to happen. Does your church only want to sanctify the marriages of left-handed Inuit octogenarian Capricorn flautists? Then do it. No one serious is standing in your way.

2. demolition65 - June 5, 2008

Watch. Wait and watch. I promise you an effort will be made, by some CINO gay couple who want to “make a point that their union is just as sanctifiable as those hetero couples” After they are lovingly and gently denied,they will then turn their wounded-bloodhound eyes to the local Courts, and then some activist-minded Jurist will rule against the Church, claiming that another “right” with no real basis in law anywhere is being denied (probably freedom of religion itself, in a thoroughly ironic twist). And there will be nothing but the sound of crickets coming from the likes of you and the ACLU.

3. Sophist FCD - June 5, 2008

Watch. Wait and watch. I promise you an effort will be made, by some CINO gay couple who want to “make a point that their union is just as sanctifiable as those hetero couples”

Man, there’s a guy suing president Bush because he thinks the CIA is trying to murder him to cover up the fact that the gub’mint is making him pay alimony. You’ll have to do better that “some idiot will sue”.

After they are lovingly and gently denied,they will then turn their wounded-bloodhound eyes to the local Courts, and then some activist-minded Jurist will rule against the Church, claiming that another “right” with no real basis in law anywhere is being denied (probably freedom of religion itself, in a thoroughly ironic twist).

Sorry, never gonna happen. Certainly not with the supreme court we have now, or any we are likely to have in the foreseeable future. You’ll be taking vacations on Mars before that happens.

And there will be nothing but the sound of crickets coming from the likes of you and the ACLU.

Please. If a case like that ever made its way to court, the ACLU would put boot to ass so fast it would warp the space-time continuum. I’m tellin’ ya, amicus briefs from hell to breakfast.

4. demolition65 - June 6, 2008

So, my “bald” premise that some idiot will sue needs further support, yet your equally bald assertion that some idiot jurist never rule in their favor has no support. I said nothing about the Supreme Court. And if President Hope/Change has his way, the court’s tilt will alter very, very quickly.

I’m getting off the point.

The point is that all we need is some idiot jurist on a lower level, such as the hopelessly berserk 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, in which I unfortunately live, to make/uphold such a finding. It is well within reason.

As for your equally bald claim on the ACLU amicus briefs, well, again, you’re going to have to do better than “I’m tellin ya, amicus briefs from hell to breakfast.” No backup proof there. So, I find my skepticism to be rather well grounded.

5. Sophist FCD - June 6, 2008

You know what, believe what you want. I don’t believe you’ll ever have a chance to find out what the ACLU would or wouldn’t do in that situation, so it really doesn’t matter.

6. demolition65 - June 6, 2008

As I said earlier. Wait and see. Believe all you like.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: