The L.A. Times editorialized today from its left-most soapbox, urging its remaining three readers to vote "no" on Proposition 8 and in favor of same-sex marriage.
http://articles.latimes.com/2008/08/08/editorial_pages/ed-marriage8 The Times agreed that Proposition 8 consisted of:
[t]he same sentence as [Prop. 22] in 2000: “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.” Yet the issue that will be put before voters Nov. 4 is radically different. This time, the wording would be used to rescind an existing constitutional right to marry. We fervently hope that voters, whatever their personal or religious convictions, will shudder at such a step and vote no on Proposition 8.
The times goes on to pay great deference and homage to the preexisting "right" suddenly protected by the California State Constitution. Guess what. It's not really there. The California Supreme Court admitted as much in its
In re Marriage Cases opinion. The nutshell summary of that opinion was this, and I kid you not: We the Court realize the citizens passed Prop. 22 defining marriage between a man and a woman. We also realize that before that, marriage in California had always been so defined in various other statutes. Even more, although the state Constitution never expressly addressed the issue, it, too, has always recognized marriage in California as between a man and a woman. HOWEVER, since Prop. 22, the state went and passed other laws allowing same-sex civil unions. After passing those laws, the state passed more laws ever increasing the rights of same sex union partners. Now, here's the kicker, the Court held that because Californians have been so merciful and granted so many rights to same-sex union partners, it has now become unconstitutional under California's equal protection clause for California law--read Prop. 22--to deny marriage to same-sex couples. Put another way, because California gave an inch, the same-sex marriage crowd was able to seize a thousand miles. And yet another: give a little, lose all.
Back to the L.A. Times editorial, which never discusses any of this judicial legerdemain by a bare 4-3 majority. Preexisting right my foot. Same-sex marriage was just barely concocted, and the ink is barely dry on the May 15, 2008 judicial opinion. It is one of the very worst court decisions I have ever read, not only for its moral obtuseness, but also for its sleight of hand. In my view, the civil union statutes should have been ruled illegal after Prop. 22. They were a blatant end run around the will of the people expressed in a duly passed voter initiative. Nevertheless, Californians adapted, and, in their tolerant way, lived and let live.
But then the California Supreme Court used that very tolerance as the linchpin for its new opinion remaking the definition of marriage. (The opinion is long and awful, but read it here, if you care to.
http://209.85.141.104/search?q=cache:gAOetbvfsocJ:www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/S147999.PDF+%22in+re+marriage+cases%22+may&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us&client=safari)
So how dare the Times accuse good citizens of seeking to destroy an "existing constitutional right," when, in fact, they are seeking to restrain a new monster the California Supreme Court has just created and turned loose. The marriage decision trampled the true rights of the many to govern themselves according to good and true principles, in order to cater to the license of the few. In all of human history, there has never been such a "right" until now. The Times' logic would protect the new monster over the community in which it's been turned loose. The People seek only to restore the exclusive primacy of heterosexual marriage that has ever been its due. After all, it is the very spring water of human existence.