The California Supreme Court usurped the will of the people by overturning the results of the previous referendum (Proposition 22) banning gay marriage. Now, the people are fighting back:
An initiative that would again outlaw gay marriage in California has qualified for the November ballot, the Secretary of State announced Monday.La Shawn Barber makes some great points about this, saying:
California Secretary of State Debra Bowen said a random check of signatures submitted by the measure's sponsors showed that they had gathered enough names for it to be put to voters.
The measure would amend the state constitution to "provide that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."
If approved by a majority of voters on Nov. 4, the amendment would overturn the recent California Supreme Court ruling that legalized same-sex marriage in the state. It is similar to gay marriage bans that have been adopted in 26 other states.
So Californians will fight back. Will the Supremes subvert the will of the people again? They'll try. They say that marriage is a constitutional right. I figure that's just what the framers imagined when they wrote the constitution: We hold these truths to be self evident--that all created beings were imbued by their Creator to have the right to marry whomever and whatever they please.
As I read this opinion, I kept wondering when I’d run into the inevitable discussion about incest and polygamy. Those of us who oppose homosexual “marriage” often argue, with good reason, that allowing two men to “marry” opens the floodgate to allowing just about anyone to marry. I never found that discussion because there wasn’t one. Instead, there’s a footnote. A footnote. From page 79 (emphasis added):
“We emphasize that our conclusion that the constitutional right to marry properly must be interpreted to apply to gay individuals and gay couples does not mean that this constitutional right similarly must be understood to extend to polygamous or incestuous relationships. Past judicial decisions explain why our nation’s culture has considered the latter types of relationships inimical to the mutually supportive and healthy family relationships promoted by the constitutional right to marry.”Wait a second. Our nation’s culture has also considered homosexual relationships “inimical to the mutually supportive and healthy family relationships promoted by the constitutional right to marry,” has it not?
What do you think?
Cross-posted at Right Wing News