Editorial: Judicial Alchemy, California Court Assaults Marriage

The California Court tried to change homosexual partnerships into something they are not, marriage.

LOS ANGELES (Catholic Online) - The California Court, in a 4-3 majority, attempted a new form of alchemy. They tried to change homosexual partnerships into something they simply are not capable of being, marriage.

They did so through a raw exercise of renegade judicial authority which clearly rejected the expressed will of the people of California. They did so without even making any pretense of relying on past precedent. They simply declared, in the words of the majority, that protecting marriage as a lifelong relationship of love between a man and a woman which forms the foundation of the first society of the family "cannot properly be viewed as a compelling state interest."

The three dissenting justices tried to distinguish themselves from this act of judicial arrogance committed by their peers. However, they did so through making a separation of powers argument. Of course, that is better than nothing, but it will not be enough in the long run.

The dissent written by Associate Justice Marvin R. Baxter and joined by Associate Justice Ming W. Chin, noted that "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.... Undeterred by the strong weight of state and federal law and authority, the majority invents a new constitutional right."

This decision was the bad fruit of a strategic, well planned activist effort to use the Courts to reshape the culture. A series of lawsuits were filed intended to overturn the expressed majority will of the people of California that marriage is between a man and a woman. The Mayor of San Francisco, a dissident Catholic, decided to be a part of the "revolution" and issued "marriage" licenses to homosexual paramours.

So, the struggle to defend true marriage has taken another turn.

Those who support marriage as a lifelong committed relationship between one man and one woman are being recast in the war of words. No matter where one stands on other issues, if you support marriage - as marriage - you are being brushed with all the disparaging terms thrown at people who insist that there is any such a thing as objective truth in an age of moral relativism.

Marriage matters. It serves the common good. Monogamous Marriage, and the family founded upon it, is the first society, the first school, the first economy, the first hospital, the first church and the foundation of a just social order. There are immense social implications to living the truth as revealed in the Natural Law for any Society.

The oxymoron, "gay marriage", once used by only the fringe elements of the homosexual movement, has now become normative. It has been accepted by the media - "conservative", "liberal" and "mainstream" - as it reports on efforts to defend and promote marriage. In an Orwellian spin, those who support marriage as marriage are now being accused of "excluding people" from marrying, being "narrow minded" or trying to push "values" or, even worse, "religion" on others.

The effort to force equivalency between homosexual unions and marriages in both the law and in the culture has gained ground through a sophisticated, intelligent, well funded and multi-faceted effort. The goal is clear - the total re-ordering of civil society in a new cultural revolution. Proponents have a verbal, social, legal, cultural and political strategy.

They are led by groups like the "Human Rights Campaign" and "Marriage Equality USA". Both are well funded and dedicated to convincing the public that there is some kind of "civil" or "human right" to engage in homosexual sexual practices, live together and then have that lifestyle given equivalent status, enforced by the police power of the State, to marriage. They have very able lawyers, great wordsmiths and lots of money.

These groups succeeded in reframing this entire issue legally in California today.

Their talk of a "the freedom to marry" has now been used as a means of painting proponents of true marriage as wanting to deny homosexual practitioners "freedom" and the "right" to marry. This was a smart and calculated move. The argument has shifted the rhetorical ground. The case is being reported by the mainstream press as being about the "freedom to marry". Those who insist that only a man and a woman are capable of marriage are portrayed as opposed to freedom.

This is akin to what happened with the deployment of the language of "choice" in the human rights struggle to protect children in the womb from being killed by dismemberment, or chemical solutions in abortion. When the battle for the language reframed that debate from the truth that abortion really is the intentional killing of our youngest neighbors, to abortion being about some kind of "freedom of choice" and privacy, respect for life reached an all time low.

Philosophers speak of ontology as the science or philosophy of being, the essence of a thing. For example, a rock is a rock and not a cabbage; a man is a man and a woman is a woman. Marriage is ontologically between a man and a woman, ordered toward the union of the spouses, open to life through the conjugal act in procreation. It also forms the foundation of family.

There can be no such thing as "marriage" between two same sex people engaging in sexual acts, even if they engage in such acts only with one another and for a protracted period of time. This is true no matter what a Court or legislature may try to impose to the contrary.

The late great C. S. Lewis coined the phrase, "verbicide" in his Book entitled "Studies in Words". The term referred to the murder of a word. Using the word "choice" to describe the killing of a child in the womb paved the way for abortion on demand, once universally opposed, and opened the door for it to be heralded as a "right" in America - and throughout the West.

The same revolutionary trajectory has been unleashed by these four unelected Justices who wrote the majority opinion.

Monogamous Marriage between a man and a woman is the first cell of civil society. Monogamous two parent marriages form the healthiest framework for the rearing of children. This fact was once widely accepted by the overwhelming majority of sane people for millennia and has been the foundation of Western culture and other cultures.

Marriage between a man and a woman was never seen as simply a "religious" idea but an institution that was confirmed by the Natural Law. Monogamous heterosexual marriages and in tact families formed the basis of civil society. Even those who broke their marriage vows and divorced did not call for scrapping the institution.

Marriage and the family founded upon it were viewed as promoting the common good of society. Stable marriage between a man and a woman was seen as a "good" that promoted human flourishing.

Taking this position is not being intolerant. It is not a matter of tolerance or respect. Genuine tolerance does not mean accepting the re-ordering of civil society to accommodate "alternative" lifestyles when they insist on the use of the police power of the State to enforce a new social, legal and cultural order. There is a difference between freedom, liberty and libertinism.

Let me borrow a Property Rights Analogy. It does not even come close in terms of the magnitude of the danger we now face because persons and their flourishing are so much more vitally important than the ownership of property. However, it may help to unmask the tactics now being used.

We still accept a uniform definition of "private property." We defend the private ownership of property as a "right". It forms a basis for our social, economic and political order.

Let's say that next year; a group among us had decided that "private property" should mean that our land also belongs to the neighbors on adjoining land. Why?
Because they decided that approach was better and they changed the definition, first among themselves, and then they had decided to enforce that private opinion upon the broader society.

Next, they insisted that the law recognize their new definition by giving it an equivalent status to the "traditional" notion of private property. Well, we can see where this is headed. You simply cannot have two distinctly different things being called the same thing. One has to yield to the other.

The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, speaking on behalf of the "Magisterium" (teaching office) of the Catholic Church, released a definitive document in 2003 concerning the defense of marriage. It unequivocally addressed growing efforts in some Western nations to redefine the word marriage and thereby eliminate the institution of the family. In it they wrote:

"The Church's teaching on marriage and on the complementarity of the sexes, reiterates a truth that is evident to right reason and recognized as such by all the major cultures of the world. Marriage is not just any relationship between human beings. It was established by the Creator with its own nature, essential properties and purpose. No ideology can erase from the human spirit the certainty that marriage exists solely between a man and a woman, who by mutual personal gift, proper and exclusive to themselves, tend toward the communion of their persons. In this way, they mutually perfect each other, in order to cooperate with God in the procreation and upbringing of new human lives."

True marriage is the most fundamental of all human social institutions. It is a relationship proposed and protected by the Natural law that binds all men and women. It finds its foundation in the order of creation. Civil institutions do not create marriage nor confer upon anyone a "right" to marry. The institutions of government should, when acting properly, defend marriage against those who would redefine it.

As a Catholic, I am angry that some of my fellow Catholics, such as the Mayor of San Francisco who shouted out today that this was a "great day" for America, are leading the assault on Marriage. Mr. Mayor, either go to confession and get right with the Church or stop this charade of Catholic identity. I am ashamed of Catholic Politicians who errantly lead the effort to grant legal equivalency between homosexual paramours and married couples.They are wrong in their policy position. They are also unfaithful to the teaching of their Church.

Good Government has long regulated true marriage for the common good. For example, the ban on polygamy and age requirements were enforced in order to ensure that there was a mature decision at the basis of the Marriage contract. Heterosexual marriage, procreation, and the nurturing of children form the foundation for the family, and the family forms the foundation of civil society.

In this act of Judicial alchemy in California, this "redefining" of marriage, these renegade Justices and their complicit public officials have imperiled the stability of our society and struck a blow against the common good. To confine marriage to heterosexual couples is not to be discriminatory. Homosexual couples cannot bring into existence what marriage intends by its very definition.

To "confer" the legal benefits that have been conferred in the past to stable married couples and families to homosexual paramours is very bad public policy.

Finally, those who claim that this position is simply a matter of "intolerance" are often the most intolerant. They now insist on forcing their brave new world on the rest of us.

Notice in the months ahead how intolerant they are of those who, though respecting the dignity of every person, including homosexuals, also insist that marriage is what it is.

The action taken by this Court will not stand. It will be brought before the electorate again in November. However, it reveals just how serious this struggle has become. Along with asking all three current candidates for President where they stand on the rights of children in the womb, this presents us with another obligation and opportunity.

So I ask the three major Party candidates, Senators Clinton, McCain and Obama:

Where do you stand on action taken by the California Supreme Court today and what will you do about it if you are elected as President?

Ironically, this action taken by the California Supreme Court may decide the outcome of this Presidential campaign.

---

'Help Give every Student and Teacher FREE resources for a world-class Moral Catholic Education'

Copyright 2021 - Distributed by Catholic Online