Posted by
John Caile on Thursday, August 05, 2010 9:38:12 AM
The latest decision by a California judge overturning the will of the People regarding the definition of marriage is not a surprise. Declaring every desire a "right" has become a standard tactic of the
Left. Can't persuade a majority of your fellow citizens to support your
view in the legislature? Simple - run to the courts and try to get
your way via the judiciary.
For too long, "gay marriage" proponents have disingenuously attempted to equate their desires
with the Civil Rights movement. But this is a canard. Civil Rights refer to the inherent rights people have by virtue of
simply being human - life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness come to mind.
Slavery and segregation were manifestly violations of true
civil rights. Oh sure, someone will attempt to argue that refusing to redefine marriage to include same-sex unions is violating their right to "pursue happiness" - but remember that the word is "pursue" not "guarantee."
Now, everyone (whether gay or
straight) has the right to mate with, and/or co-habit with, whomever
they choose, and even to make their partner responsible for their medical and other legal
decisions. And note that even those rights have limitations imposed on them by society - you can't have sex with a 12-year old, in spite of the protestations of the American Man Boy Love Association.
But whether or not such a partnership should be included in the definition of marriage is a matter for society to decide. Because marriage, is not a
right at all, let alone a civil right. It is a construct of society, and therefore the structure of
such an institution is rightly determined by the will of the people. And society has decided on certain parameters, such as age (you can't marry the previously referenced 12-year old), mental
competency, relationship of the parties (you can't marry your sister or brother), and limiting
a marriage to only two parties.
And whether through their elected representatives or, by direct referendum as they did in California, the People have clearly and overwhelmingly expressed their support for continuing to define the institution of marriage as being between a
man and a woman.
Thus, if gay marriage proponents want society to rewrite the marriage laws to legally
sanction a same-sex relationship, they are free to work to make that
happen. All they have to do is convince a majority of their
fellow citizens to go along with them.
But not by using the
courts to override the legitimate, and Constitutional, will of the People.