With little tin gods, all things are possible
By Alisa Craddock
In May of last year I wrote a column entitled "Will ‘Right to Marry' Trump State Constitutions?". In that column I stated my belief that the California Supreme Court had laid the groundwork to challenge all constitutional amendments defining marriage as a union of one man and one woman, starting with the one that was subsequently passed by the voters of California, by declaring marriage a "civil right". At the time I wrote that column, one reader wrote to me and said (and I'm offering only the gist of his remarks—I no longer have the email) that my assertion that such a constitutional amendment would be declared unconstitutional was absurd, because once a constitutional amendment was passed it would be constitutional law, and inviolable. I told my reader, "With little tin gods, all things are possible."
Now we learn that, indeed, the Attorney General of California, former Governor Jerry Brown, has set his sights on overturning the voter approved Prop 8 which declared that marriage shall be between one man and one woman, on the basis that marriage is a civil right protected by the California Constitution, and a constitutional amendment cannot nullify or define the scope of a right. What a surprise…
I hate to say I told you so, but…well, I told you so.
Let's go back and look at the ruling by the Chief Justice Ronald George, writing for the majority opinion California Supreme Court
"In light of the fundamental nature of the substantive rights embodied in the right to marry--and their central importance to an individual's opportunity to live a happy, meaningful, and satisfying life as a full member of society--the California Constitution properly must be interpreted to guarantee this basic civil right to all individuals and couples, without regard to their sexual orientation." [emphasis added.]
Basic Civil right. This move was entirely predictable. Yes there is a right to marry. But we are talking about redefining an institution. Do gays have the right to redefine marriage for the rest of us? The law does not discriminate. There is no discrimination in opposing the redefining of an institution to alter its purpose. That point was most eleoquently made by Rabbi Aryeh Spero. In his article, "Opposition to gay marriage is not discrimination" he demonstrates that the existing institution of marriage does not violate the rights of homosexual persons as described by Justice George above:
"…discrimination means that because of prejudice we do not allow a person of a particular race, religion or sexual orientation to participate in our existing institutions or enjoy the same activities others do…But no one in America would deny an avowed homosexual man to get married, like all other men, to a woman [or a woman to a man]… Who they are does not enter the equation…Whatever their announced orientation, homosexuals have the same right as everyone else to marriage as defined, across the board, by our laws and history: the union of one man (whatever his sexual orientation) to one woman (whatever her orientation). The existing institution of marriage is open to all."
There is no discrimination. We may sympathize with homosexual persons who feel they should be able to marry, but their rights are not being violated. There is no compelling state interest to redefine marriage. (It's in sorry enough shape already, thanks to contraception, abortion, and sex education classes.)
Nevertheless, since the election in November in which the people of California voted to protect marriage in their state by constitutional amendment, many homosexuals are shedding any appearance of civility and reason, and are behaving like thugs. They smell blood in the water. They see this as their moment. With a sympathetic president about to take office, gay activists (read anarchists) have taken their agenda to the next level in the form of violence, threatening mail, demonstrations, and a unified "righteous" outrage at the Mormons, Catholics, and other Christian groups who helped to galvanize the movement to protect the institution of marriage. Their outrage extends to the democratic process itself. Nor is it restricted to the political arena. Some people have actually been fired from their jobs for supporting Proposition 8.
Under California campaign finance laws, Prop 8 donors were required to submit personal information. This information is being used by homosexual activists to target individuals who supported the amendment for harassment. Some of the ballot measures supporters, whose names and addresses are recorded and publicly available, have received hate mail, some of it threatening. In addition, churches have been attacked, services disrupted, fake anthrax has been sent with threatening letters, and swastikas painted on a Catholic church.
These things are terribly disturbing, but perhaps not as disturbing as the people who have been terminated, have lost their livelihood, because they voted for Proposition 8. The Pacific Justice Institute reports numerous cases of people in the workplace being harassed, and in some cases terminated. PJI is currently representing a woman who was fired for voting for Prop 8. Kevin Snider of the PJI reported to World Net Daily that another worker at a financial company was asked before the election which way he would vote (he reportedly gave an ambiguous answer) and then was hounded after the election to reveal how he voted. When he said he supported the measure, he was written up for discrimination, and was fired a few days later.
Is this a foreshadowing of things to come in this country? I think so. Under the new administration, gays will be given special rights. Obama's transition team has reportedly named at least seven openly homosexual people to transition panels assigned to review federal departments and agencies. I expect they will bully us into submission, and will have government backing to accomplish it. We are entering into a period of unprecedented curtailment of real human rights and persecution of Christianity to serve the agenda of a twisted Left wing and its deranged and determined minions. We live in very dangerous times.
Alisa Craddock is a columnist and activist in the culture war, a convert to Catholicism, and describes herself as a Christian Libertarian. She may be contacted at alisa.craddock at hushmail.com.
Get weekly updates about new issues of ESR!