Supreme Deception: California’s Supreme Court Twisted the Meaning of Family

Because the Ninth Circuit Federal Court of Appeals overturned California’s constitutional amendment defining marriage, California marriage laws have been returned to the deceitful language found in “re Marriages,” a ruling made by California’s supreme court. The following is a sample of the fabric of lies and deception that comprise that court’s opinion. The destruction of the word marriage comes complete with the obliteration of the meaning of the word family.

Deception 1 happened like this:

First, in 2003, for the first time in California’s history 2003, the legislature of California introduced confused language into the jurisprudence of the state with this uncodified statement of legislative intent:

“This act is intended to help California move closer to fulfilling the promises of inalienable rights, liberty, and equality contained in Sections 1 and 7 of Article 1 of the California Constitution by providing all caring and committed couples, regardless of their gender or sexual orientation, the opportunity to obtain essential rights, protections, and benefits and to assume corresponding responsibilities, obligations, and duties and to further the state’s interests in promoting stable and lasting family relationships, and protecting Californians from the economic and social consequences of abandonment, separation, the death of loved ones, and other life crises” [Stats. 2003, ch. 421, 1, subd. (a) excerpted from page 38 “re Marriages”].

It is unclear from the immediate context what the legislature intended by “in promoting lasting family relationships.” This may refer to the resolution of problems same sex couples had gaining access to loved ones during hospital stays. The domestic partnership act made one’s partner [Party A] a legal member of party B’s extended family. In that way, despite objections by Party A’s immediate family, Party B had full access and legal authority over Party A’s medical care.

Then, secondly, in 2005 the change of language from confused wording to deceptive jargon was completely effected:

As we (Judge George in his office as the Chief Justice of Supreme Court of California in its majority opinion) explained in Koebke, supra, 36 Cal.4th 824, 843: “[T]he decision . . . to enter into a domestic partnership is more than a change in the legal status of individuals . . . . [T]he consequence of the decision is the creation of a new family unit with all of its implications in terms of personal commitment as well as legal rights and obligations” (excerpted from page 46 of “re Marriages”).

face

In this quote from the 2005 majority opinion in Kobke vs. Bernardo Club Country Club, the court plainly uses the terms family unit and domestic partnership synonymously. What is new in the court’s jargon in “re Marriages” is the wider use of “family relationship” to mean marriage and domestic partnership. It is in this 2008 opinion that the Court has simply decided to dispense with dictionaries, histories, statutes, or linguistic contexts of any type. The prior use of unclear legislative language in the 2003 is a threadbare excuse to abandon the principles of jurisprudence, to legislate from the bench, and to attempt to deceive the public about the reality of homosexuality itself.

A marriage is simply not a family. A family is comprised of parents and children. Here, from Dictionary.com:

“Family 1. parents and their children, considered as a group, whether dwelling together or not. 2. the children of one person or one couple collectively: We want a large family. 3. the spouse and children of one person: We’re taking the family on vacation next week”

There are eleven definitions of family given on Dictionary.com. All of the definitions, even the idiomatic ones, explicitly include or figuratively imply children. In “re Marriages” the California Supreme Court defines the union of same sex couples as a “family” relationship. It is by this euphemism that the Court names the congress of couples heterosexual and homosexual.

With the obliteration of the meaning of marriage and family, elitists in government, who have now proven to be dishonest tyrants will dictate to us what our marriages and families should be.

No matter how enlightened we are, none of us want our courtrooms filled with vivid descriptions of what takes place to consummate marriages or same sex relationships. However, could the court have picked a more deceptive title to describe the relationship that is the basis of a domestic partnership? From a homosexual “marriage” no family can ever, by nature, grow.

Moreover, throughout its judicial history, California has used the words marriage and family appropriately.  For instance, here is a direct quote from a 1995 case cited in Judge George’s opinion:

“And in Warfield v. Peninsula Golf & Country Club (1995) 10 Cal.4th 594, in discussing the types of relationship that fall within the scope of the constitutionally protected right of intimate association (one component of our state constitutional right of privacy (id. at pp. 629-630)), we [Judge George himself is the we because, in his office as a Judge of the Supreme Court of California, he wrote the court’s opinion] explained that “the highly personal relationships that are sheltered by this constitutional guaranty are exemplified by those that attend the creation and sustenance of a family marriage . . . , childbirth . . . , the raising and education of children . . . and cohabitation with one’s relatives . . . [page 56].

The comment in brackets and the emboldened text added for clarification show that in 1995 the Supreme Court of California knew the difference between a marriage and a family. Marriages were part of the creation of a family. The raising and education of children were part of the sustenance of a family. In 1996 Supreme Court Judge Ronald George was elevated to Chief Justice.

one-human-family

In the evolution of the jargon of the California judiciary, it becomes plain that marriage has been banned by the Court. Marriages no longer lead to families; they are families. Like domestic partnerships, the consummating act of marriage is not required, nor is it recognized. Like marriages, families too are now no more or no less than what some court decides they are. Families in California are no longer recognized as realities preceding governments. If everything a family legally is, depends on the good graces of legislatures and courts, what privacy rights are left to protect?

Of course the change of the legal status of marriage changes the legal status of a family. Even as early as 2003 the extraordinary changes in domestic partnership law unconstitutionally impacted the rights of family. Beginning in 2003 “Party B” gained full rights with the parent of lineage to the children of “Party A”. This was not based on an expressed last will and testament of “Party A” that would then be contested in a family court. The simple act of registering as a domestic partner deprived the bloodline parent, the child’s true family, of elements of its legal family rights. In practice does this compare equally with similar rights maintained by a second spouse in ordinary law?

This, however, not the only deception perpetrated on the public by the Supreme Court of California use of language. The deceptions in “re Marriages” and its repercussions are discussed in “Supreme Deception: re Marriages Twists the Meaning of Family, Part II.”