I wish we could fire State Supreme Court justices.
Unless you live under a rock (or at least don't have internet access!) you by now have heard that the California State Supreme Court has overturned the voter-approved law that state a marriage is between one man and one woman. Evidently, the voters don't have a say anymore, even when the legislature considers our desires, brings them to the floor, debates them, approves them, puts them out to the voters and then the voters affirm it...nope, these 7 people have decided that they know better.
Don't get me wrong -- I'm all for freedom. What you do in the confines of your own home is your business. I do believe that people who (albeit, in my opinion, are misguided) are homosexual and in a committed relationship should be allowed the same luxuries of married couples (ie, shared property, health insurance benefits, beneficiary benefits, health care decisions, etc), but it's not the same as a MARRIAGE. A marriage contract between a man and a woman was originally designed for procreation and the building of a family. That was the historical intent. But debating the definition of marriage is not the purpose of this post.
I would have thought that the domestic partner initiative would have appeased everyone, but NO, it's "not the same" they cry, and so starts the lawsuits. But here's what really gets me...
The judges overturned a decision that was the will of the people.
In fact, it went to the voters TWICE and both times it was voted upon that marriage should be between a man and a woman. MARRIAGE has a definition, and similarly, a DOMESTIC PARTNERSHIP should be between whomever and whomever.
The gays cry, "But there's not the same rights!" BUNK!
A wife automatically has rights to pull the plug on her husband should he be a vegetable.
A domestic partner has those same rights -- with a Durable Power of Attorney and Medical Directive.
A husband automatically has rights to the wife's property should she die.
A domestic partner has those same rights -- with a Will and Trust.
A wife automatically retains custody of children of the marriage, by birth or adoption, should the husband die.
A domestic partner has those same rights -- with a Will.
A husband, at the wife's election, can be included on the wife's corporate health insurance plan.
A domestic partner -- in the State of CA -- can ALSO be on a corporate health insurance plan by filing their Certification of Domestic Partnership with the employer.
And the tax benefits?
Well, if you're a DINK (dual income no kids) you're screwed if you're married because you have no deductions, so in that case, it's better to be single filing anyway!
This isn't about rights. It's about being socially accepted and these justices are trying to legislate morality. The article today reads:
California already offers same-sex couples who register as domestic partners the same legal rights and responsibilities as married spouses, including the right to divorce and to sue for child support.
But, "Our state now recognizes that an individual's capacity to establish a loving and long-term committed relationship with another person and responsibly to care for and raise children does not depend upon the individual's sexual orientation," Chief Justice Ron George wrote for the court's majority, which also included Justices Joyce Kennard, Kathryn Werdegar and Carlos Moreno.
Just out of curiosity why on EARTH does the above bolded phrase need to be put into LAW?
It's not like Domestic Partnerships are denying anyone rights. But, it's just not the SAME as a marriage.
From the dawn of time, marriage has always been between a man and a woman -- and for the longest time marriage wasn't even a political or governmental issue: it was a religious one! God created His economy that way -- it's for the good of the man, the good of the woman, the good of the children.
Nobody is saying that a homosexual couple can't love each other. Sure -- by all means -- find someone with whom you want to share your life and go for it. But, it's NOT THE SAME as a marriage. Perhaps, now that I think about it, I think I would prefer to have the word "marriage" be reclassified to ONLY be a religious term and "partnership" be a political and governmental one. Both are classified the same for benefits purposes, but there's an inherent difference.
I think what saddens me most is that the court didn't listen to the wishes of the voters. It's the same as if the court issued a ruling that said, "Nope, the legal age of drinking in California will now be....ummm, 12!" Uhhh, excuse me? Justices? Uhhh don't you guys work for US, the voters? Didn't we, the voters, vote into law the drinking age will be 21?
We are a country of laws, people! That's what makes this a great place to live! We establish and abide by our laws. I don't have to agree with all the laws, and I'm free to break them if I wish, but there are established rules nonetheless. And if you don't like the laws, you go back to the voters to get it changed. You don't just willy-nilly overturn the law when the voters have said their peace just because justices don't agree with them.
The Court, instead of expanding the Domestic Partnership laws to include those things that homosexuals were decrying as "unfair," just threw us all into one big category.
And, sakes alive, you should see the celebration in the City today. Celebrate all you want...but just like Affirmative Action attempted to correct and rebalance inequities (but didn't), gay marriage won't change the core beliefs of the vast majority of this country -- and the vast majority of the California voting population.
It's a sad day in CA today....at least for me. Thank goodness there's a plan in place to contest this decision.
A coalition of religious and social conservative groups is attempting to put a measure on the November ballot that would enshrine laws banning gay marriage in the state constitution.
The Secretary of State is expected to rule by the end of June whether the sponsors gathered enough signatures to qualify the marriage amendment, similar to ones enacted in 26 other states.
If voters pass the measure in November, it would trump the court's decision.
