The California Supreme Court Abolishes Marriage

Yesterday, the California Supreme Court abolished the legal institution of marriage in the state of California, and erected in its place a new, sex-neutral institution with the same name, thus pulling the rug out from every married couple in the state, who were under the apparent misimpression they were choosing to participate in a uniquely heterosexual institution.

The 4-3 ruling by the California Supreme Court is preposterous on its face, as it claims to be based on some devotion to the principle of equality, yet instead allows for a radical redefinition of our institution of holy matrimony in order to meet the unorthodox desires of a tiny minority of people apparently suffering from a genetic mental disorder that causes them to orient sexually and romantically upon members of their own sex. And while these unfortunates ought to be free to live their lives in the manner they see fit (as they already are permitted to do), that does not imply any requirement on the larger society to reshape its vital institutions in order to accommodate their maladaptation.

The popular term "gay marriage" is itself a logical impossibility. Marriage is a union between a man and a woman, thus contrary to popular, liberal mythology, homosexual men and women have never been discriminated against with respect to the institution of marriage, but rather they have always been free to marry each other. But as it happens, homosexual men and lesbians do not wish to marry each other. Perhaps that is unfortunate, or feels "unfair" to those beings who are driven solely by their own emotional needs and selfish desires, but the fact remains that two men can not be married, likewise two women. It is simply impossible for two men or two women to form a union of one man and one woman, and since that is what marriage is, the idea of "gay marriage" constitutes the most errant nonsense. Two men, or two women, should no more be issued a marriage license by which to sanctify their relationship than the owner of an elephant should be able to license his pet as "a dog."

While the social phenomenon of homosexuality is very destructive within the community at large, there is no rational reason to bear ill will towards individual homosexuals, who are themselves the greatest victims of this psycho-sexual maladjustment disorder. There is every reason, however, to stand up to the organized homosexual political activists and their politically correct allies, and to firmly and resoundingly tell them "No." Just as we would not let young children play with loaded pistols, we are under no obligation to cater to the outrageous demands of much of the homosexual community.

The good news, however, is that a movement is already afoot to rectify this horrific decision on the part of the California Supreme Court. Eight years ago, California voters passed Proposition 22, which is just fourteen words long ("Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California"), and was the principal statutory basis for the legal definition of marriage as a heterosexual union. It passed with 61.4% of the voters in favor. Now the same 14 words will once again be submitted before the voters this November, but not as an initiative statute, as was the case for Proposition 22, but rather as an initiative constitutional amendment. Unlike a mere statute, a constitutional amendment can not be overturned by the state supreme court, for a constitutional amendment is, by definition, a part of the constitution as a whole, and no constitution can ever be in violation of itself. A motion has already been filed with the state supreme court requesting the new ruling be stayed until after the November election.

It appears the victory of the homosexual "rights" lobby may be very short-lived indeed.

--Jake Featherston