Supreme Deception: the Evidence, Part II

A marriage is not a family and to call it one is a lie. A family always involves children. For the shambles of California law to continue to call a same sex relationship a “family unit” is especially deceptive because no family can ever occur as a result of a same sex relationship.

This deceptive legal jargon has entered California jurisprudence during the period of time in which Judge George has been broken scalethe Supreme Court’s Chief Justice. In 2005 the majority opinion in Kobke vs. Bernardo Club Country Club, uses the terms “family unit” and “domestic partnership” anonymously. What is new in the court’s jargon in “re Marriages” (May 2008) is the Chief Justice’s wider use of “family relationship” to mean “marriage” or “domestic partnership” (pages 65-66). All of this is in keeping with the Court’s open refusal to recognize marriage in the state of California. Marriage is not a “family relationship,” whatever that is supposed to mean. Marriage is not a “family unit” and never has been. Further, in the corrupt jargon of the state of California it is even more assuredly not a “family unit” or, in other words, a domestic partnership.

Californians are deceived if they think that marriage currently exists in their law as that law has now been defined by Chief Justice George and the Supreme Court of California. The definition of marriage has not been expanded to include domestic partnerships. Instead, the definition of marriage has been contracted and dehumanized. To the Supreme Court of California marriage is a mere patchwork of rights conferred on two people by the legislature and the courts. Marriage results in husbands and wives, not “Party A’s” and “Party B’s.”

California’s assessment of the nature of marriage flies in the face of  Perez vs. The State of California, the defining voice in establishing marriage as a right in the family law of California. For these jurists, jurists who codified the will of the people in matters of interracial marriage, “Marriage is thus something more than a civil contract subject to regulation by the state; it is a fundamental right of free men” (p. 714). Likewise also in Williams v. Garcetti, the Court in 1993 stated: “we have already recognized that [t]he concept of personal liberties and fundamental human rights entitled to protection against overbroad intrusion or regulation by government [such as defining races that may marry, or the preexisting conditions necessary to legal marriage, or, in this case as limiting marriage to merely the rights conferred by government] … extends to . . . such basic civil liberties and rights not listed in the Constitution [as] the right to marry, [to] establish a home and [to] bring up children (page 577, brackets and italics added).” Notice the the context makes plain the court’s intention. Marriage was not same sex. The home established was established by those with the natural ability and right to marry, and the children reared were the natural offspring of those who have the ability and right to marry.

ajustweightNone of this, however, fully describes the patterns deception perpetrated on the public by the Supreme Court of California In “re Marriages.” The majority opinion authored by Judge George is deceptive when it refers to other cases of precedent on the importance of “family relationships.” The Chief Justice refers to cases of precedent written before 2003 as evidence that supports the importance of “family relationships” as defined by the court in 2005 and 2008. For instance, on page 54, Judge George notes that

“subsequent California decisions discussing the nature of marriage and the right to marry have recognized repeatedly the linkage between marriage, establishing a home, and raising children in identifying civil marriage as the means available to an individual to establish, with a loved one of his or her choice, an officially recognized family relationship” (Italics added).

Domestic partnerships are not what the case he cites, DeBurgh v. DeBurgh (1952), was about at all. Continuing on Judge George stated,

“for example, in explaining the public interest in the institution of marriage’ (id. at p. 863), this court (in Deburgh) stated: “The family is the basic unit of our society, the center of the personal affections that ennoble and enrich human life. It channels biological drives that might otherwise become socially destructive; it ensures the care and education of children in a stable environment; it establishes continuity from one generation to another; it nurtures and develops the individual initiative that distinguishes a free people. Since the family is the core of our society, the law seeks to foster and preserve marriage.” (Id. at pp. 863-864.)

In his citation of DeBurgh v. DeBurgh Chief Justice George makes it sound as though this court referred to marriage as a family relationship. It never did. In 1952 marriage was marriage and a family was a family. Additionally, in order to utilize this quote about domestic partnerships, the judge must assume first that marriage is not between a man and a woman. However, George blurs this very important distinction rather than obviate it. He does this by using the jargon concocted under his rule as Chief Justice.proverbs

Similarly, throughout the section in which he notes past decisions about marriage in order to catalog the importance and rights of marriage (53-66), he assumes that each right or benefit of marriage from old precedents can be assigned to any legalized relationship between two people. On page 66 the judge concluded,

“It is true, of course, that as an historical matter in this state marriage always has been limited to a union between a man and a woman. Hence, the foregoing thirteen pages of supposed evidence are entirely irrelevant. Tradition alone, however, generally has not been viewed as a sufficient justification for perpetuating, without examination, the restriction or denial of a fundamental constitutional right.”

The italicized words are my addition. These words should have been added by Judge George, all the more because he concludes that this was all the traffic of mere tradition. Moreover, his conclusion that all of the rights attributed to marriage were based on no more than tradition is itself misleading. The references were observations justices made in specific instances; they were not observations about historic tradition. Finally, although no evidence was presented that same sex couples gain any of the benefits mentioned by the authorities referred to, nor that the state has any interest at all in same sex unions, the court behaves as though it has listed thirteen pages of evidence proving both the interest of the state and the benefit to individuals of same sex unions. This is misleading and deceptive. The Court should plainly admit that it is rewriting the definition of marriage in a way it sees fit and cease attempting to persuade Californians that this has anything whatsoever to do with previous case law.

The court would lead us to believe that the references to families as the building blocks of society are directly related to the civil institutions designated by governments. The court would have us believe that a same sex couple is a building block of society, just as these famed jurists of the past declared was the case with married couples and their children. This equation is at least, open to discussion.

While we can conceive of marriages and children leading to societies and governments, we cannot see same sex unions leading to the existence of nations states. Indeed, the existence of children in a same sex union is, like a school, inconceivable without the good graces of the society at large. This is a matter for legislation, not for courts. The people of California are under no genuine constitutional compulsion to submit children who are wards of the state for adoption to same sex couples. In California the people have legislated that such adoption is acceptable. Considering the incompetence of state agencies in every aspect of public and private life, perhaps the wisdom of the people of California is to be applauded.

In Part III of “Supreme Deception: the Right to Deceive” the court’s explanation of privacy rights and same sex marriage will be probed.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *