What’s LEFT of the Constitution? Prop. 8 and the Administration’s Marriage Doubletalk
Posted on March 10, 2009
Alliance Defense Fund: What’s Left of the Constitution? California, Marriage, and the Obama Administration
“What’s Left of the Constitution?” is a periodic news digest featuring Alliance Defense Fund legal analysis of proposals, policies, and trends advanced by the federal government. On a regular basis, this digest specifically highlights policies and actions that move America away from the principles of the U.S. Constitution and closer to the demands of the political Left, especially ones that threaten religious liberty, the sanctity of life, and marriage and the family.
For the second time in less than a year, the California Supreme Court will decide whether to reject the votes of millions of Californians regarding marriage. Proposition 8 implemented an amendment to the California Constitution that states, “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.” It passed by a margin of approximately 5 percent in November 2008.
The impact of the court’s decision will not be limited to marriage. Soon we will know whether the democratic process matters and what the impact will be on those who disagree with advocates of homosexual behavior.
Marriage remains a hot-button issue, and advocates of the homosexual agenda continue to argue that the public should have no say in the matter. These activists have adopted a two-pronged assault to enact their desires: first, to harass and vilify those who disagree; and second, to find judges who are sympathetic and will overrule the people.
When presidential candidate Barack Obama visited the Saddleback Civil Forum in California in August 2008, he gave his views on marriage:
“I believe that marriage is the union between a man and a woman.”
Yet, the new administration’s actual policies and planned actions for marriage are stated much differently. The new administration…
· Supports “full civil unions and federal rights for [homosexual] couples”
· Opposes a “constitutional ban on same-sex marriage”
· Promises to repeal the federal “Defense of Marriage Act”
One look at the “Civil Rights Agenda” page of the White House website makes it clear that the rhetoric during the Saddleback Forum does not match the reality of the new administration’s priorities. They are advocating policies—and creating a legal and political landscape—that will lead to the judicial redefinition of marriage.
» Filed Under 1st Amendment, Activist Judges, Bigotry, DOMA, Homosexual Agenda, Homosexual Fascism, Moral Relativism, News, Secular Humanism, Social Engineering, State's Constitution, Video
Trackback URL
Comments
30 Responses to “What’s LEFT of the Constitution? Prop. 8 and the Administration’s Marriage Doubletalk”
Leave a Reply
Obama supports full civils unions for homosexuals, but civil unions is not marriage.
And the president are against same-sex marriage.
There’s rhetoric…then there’s reality Robert. Obama admitted in 1996 that he wanted to redefine marriage. His cold fish “support” for marriage during the 2008 campaign was a political calculation. He knows full well that the radical homosexual legal agenda advocates don’t really want “civil unions” and neither does he. “Civil unions” and the creation of other marriage counterfeits lead directly to legal challenges to marriage laws and calls for “full equality.” Look at CA and CT. “Civil unions” are a Trojan Horse, a stepping-stone. Everyone knows it. Obama certainly does.
Being part of the Constitution kind of makes it impossible to define it as “unconstitutional” doesn’t it?
And Robert is right – supporting civil unions is not the same as supporting marriage.
You’d think that would be a no-brainer, right? Marriage is defined in the CA constitution, but that hasn’t stopped the radical left.
Angie, you really need to re-think your position. YOU may think it is “different,” but it’s not. As I mentioned above, the creation of marriage counterfeits (relationships treated as if they are marriages in everything but name), is the camel’s nose, shoulders and first hump in the tent. This isn’t some hypothetical, unsupported slippery slope argument, it is part of the applied homosexual legal agenda. CA and CT demonstrate this very clearly.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BbQ4b8RpCXc
I might have to step back and ask — what is your argument in favor of marriage imitations created by the state? I ask because some people have been confused by deceptive arguments about “hospital visitation” and assignment of responsibility for legal and financial decisions to the person of one’s choice.
Obama doesn´t change the constitution for this issue, and if he wanted to redefined the marriage, sorry, but the constitution wouldn´t be modificated for that.
It’s amusing that the rabidly hateful opponents of Marriage Equality, may very well cause CA to get rid of ANY recognition of marriage, for any couple. ALL couple’s government benefits will come by a Civil Union license, for gays and straights.
No one is saying that he will advocate for a federal constitutional amendment to redefine marriage. However, his ideological bedfellows are perverting the constitution in order to achieve their stated goal — to forcibly redefine marriage through the courts.
We are not “opponents of Marriage Equality,” Orwell. Your capitalization of this propaganda term makes it sound like “The Ministry of…” should proceed it.
We support marriage between one man and one woman (the only union than can possibly provide society with the benefit that led to marriage recognition in the first place) and the right of the PUBLIC to set public policy by way of the legitimate democratic process.
This might be the better initiative in CA to make all couples have a Civil Union license, lets see how many Holier-Than-thous will give up any government couple benefits by not getting a civil union license. Weddings will mean nothing more than a baptism ceremony, and btw. there are as many open and affirming churches which will have weddings for gay couples who wish them, so we will have equality, one way or another.
“No one is saying that he will advocate for a federal constitutional amendment to redefine marriage”.
That´s what the hard left want, Greg, i don´t think so (and I hope).
@greg…[edited], Court rulings are every bit as legitimate as any other law in America. Maybe you aren’t familar with three co-equal branches of government.
@Greg
Marriage was a means a patriarchal society used to try to recognise paternity. The earlier matrilineal society had no need to prove who was the mother. Marriage since it’s inception was a financial arrangement, a brides father provides the needed dowery to unload his daughter(his property) to the groom (which now is his property.) The bible thumpers love to say marriage is such a sacred rite, and ignore all the references to polygamy. Where in the bible is any rabbi shown performing a marriage, or reciting marriage vows? It didn’t happen, the dowery was paid and the deal was struck.
EVERYONE on either side of Same Sex Marriage debate knows which way the wind is blowing. Within about a decade SSM will be legal in all 50 states. Those old folks above 65yo oppose SSM by 61%, those 65yo to 35yo slightly favor SSM, and those under 35yo OVERWHELMINGLY support SSM by 61%. As older voters die off, and more youths come to voting age, SSM passes easily. So this is the HATERS LAST GASP.
For all the folks so afraid of what will be mentioned in schools concerning gay or lesbian parents. Those families exist already, and marriage or no marriage doesn’t change those families. Custody of childen can be shared without marriage, Many heterosexual couples are not getting married, or they are divorced, or remarried.
so unless you are h0mEsKo0lIn’ your tykes, they are going to hear about families that aren’t Ozzie and Harriet.
“EVERYONE on either side of Same Sex Marriage debate knows which way the wind is blowing.” Apparently Mark doesn’t know which way the wind is blowing. WASPs might be in the midst of a generational move in that direction. But more and more WASPs are failing to reproduce in sufficient quantity to replace themselves. The populations that are increasing in size, i. e., blacks, Hispanics, Muslims, immigrants in general, are staunchly against SSM. For a while yet judges will continue to usurp their authority and give SSM the legitimacy it could not gain through normal channels. But the day is coming when such judges will face consequences such as being voted out or impeached. Then the pendulum will swing the other way and even the Democrat party will come to militantly oppose SSM.
What a bunch of whiney, loser, babies you folks are.
In the end, The Gays will win.
And after all of us are long gone from this planet, YOUR people will be looked at as Nazi buffoons.
Have a nice day, losers.
There is admittedly some disagreement within the Gay community over what’s more important, the word “marriage” or the benefits and responsibilities that are connected with it. As someone who prides himself as being nothing if not diplomatic, I would take simple legal equality under the law, even if the operative term is “civil unions.” If social conservatives simply wish to reserve the term “marriage” for heterosexual couples, they can have it, as long as Gay couples are treated fairly.
Here’s an example of how the current system is not fair: According to a statement I recently received in the mail from the Social Security Administration, my married spouse would be eligible for over $1400 per month (after retirement) in the event of my death. I think anyone would agree that $1400 per month is a pretty hefty chunk of change. However, it is money that my significant other would not be eligible for, because we would not be allowed to get married. I would like to provide for the financial well-being of my spouse, just as I’m sure any heterosexual would, but in essence I’m throwing away money on a fund that my partner cannot take advantage to in the event of my death.
At the root of this discrepancy is the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) which was signed, to his eternal shame, by Bill Clinton. Because of DOMA, even Gay couples who are legally married in California or Massachusetts are unrecognized by the federal government, and any such couple becomes magically “UN-married” once they move to another state. So frankly, even married Gay couples in California and Massachusetts continue to be second-class citizens in the eyes of Washington.
At the very least, the federal government should allow Gay spouses to file joint tax returns and to designate one another for survivorship benefits under Social Security. If a “civil union” would allow us to do this, I’m all for it. If not, then nothing but full marriage equality will suffice.
Chris, I’m paralyzed by the great intellectual weight of your arguments. Do I have this right? I’m wrong because you called me a baby. I’m a loser and a Nazi buffoon because you said I am. There’s no getting around that. Oh, and you’ll win because you say you’ll win. It’s the magnificent nonargument argument. It’s the I-can-do-more-name-calling-than-you-can argument. Well it may be charitable to call it an argument since and argument is a series of connected statements that lead to a conclusion. All you have is a conclusion and some ranting.
“Where in the bible is any rabbi shown performing a marriage, or reciting marriage vows?”
This is silly Mark. Read Genesis 1:27-31 and 3:20-25. Not a rabbi performing a marriage, but the Almighty doing so as His FIRST act upon creating the complementary creatures Man and Woman. In fact, the VERY reason, as explained clearly in Scripture (1:20), that Woman was created was IN ORDER THAT Man and Woman be married.
If you want to talk about a rabbi, specifically, blessing marriage…allow me to introduce you to a rabbi named Jesus. He speaks for himself on the topic in Matthew 19:4-6.
References to love, marriage and human sexual morality occur repeatedly through the Bible, so I have no idea why you would think you had a strong argument here, Mark.
My argument for marriage isn’t a Biblical one (although I am informed by my faith, of course, just as you are informed by the things you hold most dear), you brought it up. I would advise that you not try to make arguments like that when you are obviously, painfully, ignorant of the material to which you refer.
Chuck–
I understand your point and have heard it time and time time and time and time again. However, you are making a category error. The reason marriage is recognized by the state is because it brings benefits to the state that no other human relationship does (or can!). The fact is, same-sex relationships do not (and cannot) perform the societal function that man-woman unions uniquely perform. Marriage is properly assigned a different status because it is categorically different than any other relationship, and is beneficial to society in a way that no other relationship can possibly be. Its benefit to society is the reason that there are benefits assigned to it that are not assigned elsewhere.
There wasn’t, as so many seem to imagine today, this pot of benefits available that governments from the beginning of human history got together to figure out how to distribute…and in every smoke-filled tent they decided to stick it to the homosexuals by shutting them out of this arbitrary benefit disbursement lottery. What has really happened is that these benefit schemes were created and remain in place almost everywhere in RESPONSE to the pre-existence of the building block of society and culture — marriage between one man and one woman. This is the one human relationship that government SHOULD encourage, for a whole host of reasons, not least of which is the propagation of and protection for future generations of children. Same-sex relationships just are not the same, so should not be treated the same.
Yes, yes, I know…what about the infertile…should we ban them from marriage? No. We don’t know what the future holds for those couples. We also don’t want government-administered fertility oaths and tests as a condition for a marriage license. The point is, that we make laws for the general, not the exception. Just because we have divorces and geriatric nuptials today at a rate unseen until the present time doesn’t mean we blow up marriage altogether. Even if we can make an educated assumption that two oldsters getting married are past their reproductive potential, we don’t redefine marriage for this exception. There is nothing arbitrary about this. What IS arbitrary is any redefinition of marriage. Calling same-sex relationships “marriage” is arbitrary and any other group which thinks its relationships should be recognized by the state as marriage can make the very same arguments as the homosexual legal advocates are making today…and how can those same advocates argue against anyone else demanding “marriage equality” on the very same terms?
DEAR GREG SCOTT:
The one concrete reason you have cited enshrining marriage as a purely heterosexual institution is because of “the propagation of and protection for future generations of children.” And YET a heterosexual couple doesn’t require a marriage license to make babies … and as you yourself have admitted, the desire to make babies is not a prerequisite for obtaining a marriage license. Your argument also ignores the fact that countless Gay couples DO have children, either through adoption or artificial insemination; by your logic those couples should be permitted to marry for the “protection” of THOSE children.
But in reality, CHILDREN are irrelevant to the issue of marriage. Ask any Straight couple why they choose to marry. Their answer will not be, “We want to get married so that we can have sex and make babies!”
No, the reason couples choose to marry is to make a solemn declaration, before friends and family members, that they wish to make a commitment to one another’s happiness, health, and well-being, to the exclusion of all others. Those friends and family members will subsequently act as a force of encouragement for that couple to hold fast to their vows.
THAT’S what makes marriage a good thing. Gay couples recognize that and support that. And those that want to prohibit Gay couples from marrying do so only because they don’t want to allow Gay couples the opportunity to PROVE that they are up to the task. As Andrew Sullivan once said, “You can have lots of sex without marriage. And you can have a marriage without much or any sex. But you cannot have a meaningful marriage without love and commitment.”
Now as I mentioned in my initial response, I’m willing to be diplomatic about this. From a purely Constitutional standpoint you can come up with no justification for denying law-abiding, taxpaying Gay couples the exact same legal benefits and responsibilities that Straight couples have always taken for granted … but there is room for compromise in the form of “civil unions” if those benefits and responsibilities are the same.
Think about it: What is the point of require Gay Americans to contribute to the system of financial and legal incentives for marriage when we are not allowed to take part in that legal institution as well? Why is it that Straight couples are encouraged to date, get engaged, marry and build lives and families together in the context of monogamy and commitment, and that this is a GOOD thing … yet for Gay couples to do exactly the same is somehow a BAD thing? To me this seems like a very poor value judgment.
“But in reality, CHILDREN are irrelevant to the issue of marriage.”
No, children are essential to the issue of marriage, Chuck. Children are the very reason marriage was created and recognized by the state in the first place. Marriage was not an institution merely for adults who want to “make a life together,” etc. If that were the case, the state would have recognized best friends, long-time co-habiting spinsters and any other combination of adults in close relationships. No, the reason marriage is recognized is because a man-woman union is the only union that can produce children. I know you know this.
The best way to order society and to make sure those children are legally accounted for and that the maximum number of children are brought up in this ideal environment (with their own married mom and dad) is to encourage the only relationship that can possibly be responsible for producing children.
The arguments that you use about unmarried people being able to pro-create and the fact that same-sex couples choose to use alternative means in order that the resultant children are purposely brought into the world without either a mother or a father utterly fail. While these things are true, they do happen, how does that equal a good argument for dissolving marriage by redefinition?
The chaos that has been visited on children by leftist ideas of the last generation — sex “without consequences,” abortion, no-fault divorce, a welfare system that rewarded out-of-wedlock births and discouraged fatherhood — has been devastating. Jails, morgues, rehabs and STD clinics are filled with fruit of those ideas. Arguing that since these conditions exist we should just take the next step off the cliff is like saying that the best way to fix a flat is to slash the other tires.
Bottom line, Chuck: The state only has an interest in encouraging conjugal marriage. Any other group of people are free to make any solemn commitments in front of whomever they choose without interference from the state, so that argument of yours fails. It is true, people will produce children in less than ideal circumstances, but the state should not be promoting arrangements in which children will purposely be deprived a mom or a dad. The state should discourage this form of child deprivation by treating the ideal as the ideal. And the ideal, GENERALLY (please save the anecdotes), for children, for whom marriage was established, is for them to be blessed with their birthright — a married mother and father. The state can’t stop people from procreating and can’t stop same-sex couples and homosexual persons from attempting to mimick the natural course of human reproduction through artifical means, but it should not be promoting either because both devalue marriage to the detriment of children, not only the children forced into these arrangements, but future children who will be born similarly deprived because society decided that the emotional needs of a miniscule segment of the population was exalted over the real needs of real children.
Your argument about paying into tax system is another loser. I don’t want to pay for Planned Parenthood’s yearly bailout and I don’t want to pay for the failed government education system in which my child does not participate and I don’t want to pay for a Teapot Museum in Indiana. My point is pretty easy to grasp.
“children are essential to the issue of marriage”, yes, in some cases. But it depends.
I know a lot of people who have got married and don´t have childs.
“I know a lot of people who have got married and don´t have childs.”
True enough Robert, but that doesn’t change the reason why marriage is recognized by the state. Childless marriages are the exception, not the rule. Law and public policy are determined in order to address the general good, not to appease radical special interests who represent small fractions of the population that are trying to impose an agenda on the rest of us.
I don’t understand why the debate over marriage equality continues, marriage is a religious sacrament protected under the 1st amendment.
Please see:
http://www.themonastery.org/?destination=announcements
Post your source and link!
“Those old folks above 65yo oppose SSM by 61%, those 65yo to 35yo slightly favor SSM, and those under 35yo OVERWHELMINGLY support SSM by 61%.” If this is true how can you explain how Prop. 8 lost? Is there a much higher rate of functional illiteracy among the advocates of SSM? I’m not trying to be funny or derisive. I’m just trying to figure out how those figures can possibly be true given the ease with which Prop 8 passed. Most likely the poll you’re citing suffered from a severe sampling error since its results do not replicate in the real world.
Snaggle, it’s “Democratic” not “Democrat”. Geez.
I actually heard an appealing idea here, not something I would have expected to find– that the state simply recognize domestic partnerships when it comes to rights and responsibilities, and ignore the nature of the partnership, whether it’s a marriage or civil union etc. I think that’s a great idea! Truly!
FarmerTom
Ever since I came to understand the superdelegate system whereby the Democrat party insiders have taken total control over the nominating process I have had an aversion to using that word in that context. This party has taken decision making away from rank and file party members and placed it completely in the hands of the fat cat party bosses. I just do not wish to be a part of the move to totally strip the word ‘democratic’ of meaning as applying it to a party that has no democratic principles would do.
Yes we’re nazis cause we refuse to allow gays to act like their superior towards us nice going invoking godwin’s law troll