The Eclipse of the American Idea

The legacy of the Declaration of Independence is well over two hundred years old, but the American idea has never been in greater danger.

First, the idea that the individual has been endowed by his Creator with the sovereign right to a government that works for him has been eroded by a hundred years of creeping socialism, but recently matters have become much worse. The most enduring legacy of our Constitution, a liberty that has stood unscathed, suddenly lies in smoking ruin. America’s religious liberties are gone. Their light has been eclipsed.

In deciding to make homosexual marriage the law of the land, the Supreme Court has, for all practical purposes, made homosexuality a protected civil rights class like race, religion, and gender. They have done so without a constitutional amendment or any attempt to solicit the will of the people. That they could do this shows how far gone our Constitutional liberties already were, but the court has made matters much worse.

The proof that the Supreme Court of the United States has unlawfully rewritten the United States Constitution is that our religious liberties are no more. The self-evident proof that our religious liberties are gone is in the desperate and pathetic attempts of some conservatives to produce bills downloadprotecting what has now been ripped, in practice, from the U.S. Constitution.

Our laws protecting religious liberty from government, a model that has spread world wide, have been twisted into a weapon to affect the very persecutions they were once written to end. For instance, as a Christian, I may not agree with other Christian florists and bakers who refuse to participate in a homosexual wedding. Indeed, I might make points about Christian charity and its power to change lives. Nevertheless, my brothers and sisters are under no legal obligation to agree with me. That’s the American way. That’s freedom of religion and of speech.

When the courts add homosexuality as a protected class, the American tradition of no government involvement in religion is utterly undermined. In practical effect, a church that espouses Christian charity for bakers, tailors, photographers, and florists is favored by government while Christian, Muslim, Hindu, or Jewish religions that begin to perform marriages for same sex couples would be even more highly favored. Ultimately, churches that refuse to self-edit their Bibles concerning homosexuality will come in conflict with the force of anti-discrimination laws once written to protect their liberties. Whether they use this authority or not, our government has now been granted the ability to establish a religion or to persecute a religion over its views on homosexuality. Oh, by the way, you can bet they’ll use it.

constantine swordThe sword Constantine the Great drew in the house of God, Thomas Jefferson sheathed in our founding documents. Constantine did not mark the birth of Christianity, but he marked the birth of Christendom in the West. From that day until our founders took their stand, by special endowment or by the use of military force, European governments sponsored teachings and leaders in Christian organizations. More blood ran from Constantine’s sword over the course of European history than from the Black Plague. Once the New World was discovered, courageous people couldn’t get away from Europe fast enough. The Supreme Court has drawn the sword of Constantine again. America’s Copernican shift in the view of the relationship between good people and their government has been shrouded in medievalism.

The Defamation of Marriage and the Rise of Totalitarianism

To abandon celebrating the self-evident truths of what a marriage is, is to abandon reason itself, for reason tells us that the oaths of marriage are abiding in their humanity. The abiding meaning of these oaths to the human spirit flow from their relationship to the commitment to others demanded by every biological union of man and Cer4F0TWQAEspsJwoman. The oaths of marriage are not for self.  The oaths of marriage begin with self, but they are in exchange for something higher in people than their personal desire. The exchange of vows is about far more than joint financial agreements that mutually benefit each ‘partner.’ Marriage oaths are selfless commitments made because of each individual’s honesty with reality.

In all of this “marriage equality” legalese is a kind of bitterness, a jealously that requires the defamation of marriage from personal spite. Only the strain-at-a-gnat, most superficial things that can, by arcane, nonsensical sophistry be associated with marriage, are of interest to modern “justice.” Under the guise of the misguided pursuit of the jurisprudence of equal outcomes as justice, the courts claim the state has no interest in the human part of marriage. Such courts and such laws must ignore liberty because liberty is a human thing. Only human hearts can see the bars that hold living things in prisons for what they truly are. 

It’s a hardness of heart, not justice, that shuts out human concerns, loves, and, finally, liberty in the name of equality.

Cer4FzQXEAQh1eDNo rational system of law can survive an arrogance so blinding it cannot see the purpose of the sacred promises of marriage, vows that are far above a desire for financial and social advantage or “equality.” No civilization can endure a foolishness so malignant that it would deny the reality, reason, and the nature of these vows. The alternatives are the savagery of totalitarian tyranny and mob rule. Vows like those that are part of marriage bring out the best, most humane in mankind. A nation that would ignore these values is inhuman and very dangerous.

Consider as an example of our national vulgarity, the legal corruption surrounding the trial of California’s Proposition 8, a trial that ended a voter initiated amendment to California’s constitution defining marriage. The definition of marriage the voters chose was, obviously, the definition of marriage already embodied in California’s constitution and family law.

Because the monkey trial atmosphere surrounding California’s Proposition 8 so reeked of corruption, it marriageis very difficult to tell from the edited version of the “Proponents Defense of Proposition 8″ (Walker’s ruling p. 6) how well ProtectMarriage.com defended that crazy California proposition that marriage is between a man and a woman. For instance, Proposition 8 is, first about preserving the definition of marriage in our laws. A marriage is a marriage and always will be a marriage despite the judicial travesty of putting marriage on trial for inequality. However, in protecting the definition of marriage, Proposition 8 is foremost a defense of the ‘right to marry’ enshrined in federal and state law. Neither the plaintiffs, the majority of voters, nor the judiciary have any authority to infringe upon this natural right of a man and a woman to join in marriage. Tragically, it has been the courts that have led the charge, not to preserve the right to marry, but to deprive the people of the legal recognition of this right. This is prima facie evidence that the bow of our constitutional government is sinking, and, like the stern of the Titanic, an American totalitarianism rises.

What was born in the darkness of California’s corrupt judicial proceedings, proceedings that showed a profound hatred of our constitutional law, can only bring deep evil to our society and culture.

Plainly some of ProtectMarriage.com’s arguments sounded like they were the wrong ones for this particular California judge. For instance, arguing that “We should not accept a court decision that may result in public schools teaching our own kids that gay marriage is ok…” (p. 7) is like arguing natural rights before a hereditary monarch. This is the blindness that passes for light in the dim and reeking recesses of our national “jurisprudence.”

Judge Walker sought to undermine a sound premise argued by ProtectMarriage. Judge Walker’s summary of this part of the argument reads, “…If the gay marriage ruling [of the California Supreme Court] is not overturned, TEACHERS COULD BE REQUIRED to teach young children there is no difference between gay marriage and traditional marriage” (p.7). Walker emphasized “could” to emphasize that the gay community repeatedly denied that teaching gay marriage to kindergartners was on the agenda. Apparently, the good judge felt it was time to refight the campaign, not in the public square where the brainless, dirty masses have the right and power to disagree. Instead, he chose to bolster its wijudgesdom by refighting the campaign in the sanctity of his safely elite, intellectually pure, courtroom. He didn’t argue the law. He argued words spoken in campaign literature. About this though, he was, as about everything else, wrong and deceitfully wrong. California history has shown conclusively that now that the Supreme Court of the United States has made dehumanized marriage the law of the land, our government schools will immediately become sexual “reeducation camps” from the earliest years.

Additionally, based on Judge Walker’s conclusion that asserting that marriage is between a man and a woman “targets gay and lesbians specifically due to sex (p.120),” he seems to have surprised everyone by taking the words “no difference” to mean no “qualitative” difference. In other words, he indicated that all who say that marriage is between a man and a woman intend to teach that same sex couples cannot be successful parents or that their commitment to each other is in some way inferior to that of heterosexual couples. He took, apparently without asking clear follow up questions, the plaintiff’s position that those who espouse the outrageous claim that marriage is between a man and a woman do so to intentionally disparage same sex couples. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Everyone recognizes that the differences that sane people wish to preserve between same sex unions and marriage are factual, biological, and historic.  If there is scientific evidence that children raised by same sex couples do not fare well, that is a matter for science and law. Courts have no more business legislating this that they do in devising the means of conducting open heart surgery.

ProtectMarriage explained that the plaintiffs give no alternative definition of marriage and send, therefore, every branch of family law into an endless morass of absurdity. Their words fell on deaf, callous ears.

It is, nevertheless, apparent that ProtectMarriage made a sound and vigorous defense of the benefits of kidsmarriage to children and for the state’s profound interest in the weakest among us. This is a sound argument, and in happier days such words would never have fallen unheeded to the ground. But these are perilous times. These are the days of a social obsession with an equality of outcomes so complete and total that no aspect of civil life is spared it’s intrusion. Instead of showing the natural compassion for the weak that must be part of a judicial temperament, Judge Walker fixated on bizarre celestial visions of equal protection. Instead of erring on the side of caution, Judge Walker put the state’s interest in assuring the will of the people with regards to the welfare of their children aside. As a result, one who seems unfit for the judgments of law has set himself up as the final authority and arbiter of the benefits of family to children. Judge Walker accepted novel studies over the proven wisdom of the ages. He did this because, in American society today, this is true enlightenment.

The defamation of marriage is the consequence of an idolatrous blindness and an ascending American totalitarianism.

These are the days of the leveling of our land. There can be no excellence because there can be no failure. It does not matter whether you study hard and become an outstanding physician who is able to help people in ways no one had ever thought about before; your outcome must be the same as your neighbor’s. It does not matter whether you’ve chosen to do drugs all through high school, the state must provide for your college education and the best health care that everyone else’s money can buy. Likewise, if you are a homosexual it is just not fair that you can’t be married like everyone else, even though it is physically impossible.

We have been making excuses for everyone in society.  It is not compassion but an obsessive craving for a self-deceptive, idolatrous ideal that thrives on its own relativistic madness. A fear of the truth, like the Tower of Babel, is being, block by block, lifted from the cheering masses of smug, useless “intellectuals” that populate the sterile hopeless corridors of our universities. Only the rise of a totalitarian state could defy the natural light of liberty completely enough to satisfy craving for self importance.

Most of the working people in America could care less about this new religion of egalitarianism. However, the elite of our educational institutions know this idol and have bowed before its golden horns.the-golden-calf

Western society’s “new” ideology, its “new” religion, is one so psychotic it can tolerate none other. Its first creed is that “all truth is relative.” Hence its others: “all choices are virtue,” “all choices are equal,” and, therefore “no choice has a consequence.” This is not a happy time in California where the merit of the family is not in the state interest. This is not a happy time in the United States when “equal protection” is exalted above sanity in a farce beyond historic parallel. The notion that some choices are a blessing to the individual and to his country is a notion that can no longer be tolerated. Such a conclusion is unacceptable, so no fact that leads to such conclusions can, ipso facto, be valid. Today we are closer to the days of the monkey-courts of the French Revolution than we were last week. An American totalitarianism is rising.

Dehumanized Marriage is Not a Party

Dehumanized marriage, gay marriage, is often touted as progress of some sort. Many seem to feel that a dehumanized marriage is like “letting everyone be part of the party.” Dehumanized marriage is not a party; it’s an invitation to tyranny.

Marriage, “a joining,” is a mutual commitment based on a biological union. While indeed, marriage is a “celebration” of this commitmarrriage 4ment, here the word “celebration” is not a party. Instead, the celebration sets aside a relationship between two people as unique because of the mutual decision to form a biological, sexual union. Whether or not children arise from this biological union, this union, marriage, is a commitment based on biological realities.

Marriage is both a natural right and a constitutional right. It’s a natural right because it is utterly independent of governments. Legitimate governments, though, as with all natural rights, are responsible for recognizing and protecting the humanizing reality of marriage. Indeed, in our recent constitutional past, courts have found this to be the case. In 1967, in 1978, and in 1987 the Supreme Court rightly found that marriage, understood in essence as, “the conjugal union of man and woman, contracted between two qualified persons, …[obliging] them to live together throughout life,” is not only a natural right, but a fundamental right inherent in the liberties our constitution obliges our government to note and protect.

Everyone knows that marriage is no picnic, but neither is it an adult prom, a special chance to be recognized by friends and family as part of the traditional flow of society. American laws are based on nearly eight hundred years of cartawar demanding, protecting, and transmitting natural rights and liberties. There must be some other way to make same sex couples feel welcome in society than by purposely undermining the core reality of natural rights that forms the foundation of Western law and civilization.

Doug Mainwaring, a gay Tea-Party activist, once called the marriage equality movement an “un-defining” of marriage. He was exactly right. This “un-defining” is an insidious destruction, not only of marriage, but of the limited government a free people must demand. While marriage, like conscience, is as lasting as our humanity itself, limited government relies on the rule of law. As Marxism has “un-defined” property and thievery, so our judicial system has been bearing the national chest to the storm, begging the lightning to strike. By dehumanizing our marriages and families, we declare ourselves mindless, mewing cattle ready for the avarice of tyrants.

Some of even the most patriotic Americans don’t really understand either the legal or spiritual history of marriage. magna-carta1For instance, one brief before the Ninth Circuit brief read: “At the heart of this case are two competing conceptions of marriage. The traditional conception…holds that.. its [marriage’s] central purpose…is to channel potentially procreative sexual relationships into enduring, stable unions for the sake of responsibly producing and raising the next generation.”

The carriage is before the horse! Children and a strong family are but a benefit of maintaining a marriage. It’s the fruit, not the tree. Our judiciary must be unceasingly reminded of their Constitutional responsibility to uphold the natural right to marry and all other natural rights.

Un-defining a right denies that right. If we have a right to marry, but the word “marriage” is meaningless, we have a right to nothing. A society that suppresses, ignores, or devalues any natural right will reap the whirlwind.

More will be impacted than the state of children in dehumanized “marriages.” If our government cannot be trusted to tell the truth about marriage, it can’t be trusted to tell the truth on anything. Why should we unfetter gmarriage 3overnment from its obligations to guard our inherent liberties? Would we willing allow the federal judiciary to un-define the right to bear arms? Perhaps the right to bear sharp Frisbees is liberty enough for a free people.

Any government that does not recognize and protect natural, unalienable rights is an unnatural evil. Why? Because that government’s entire mission statement has become corrupted. Legitimate governments only exist by virtue of their charter to recognize and protect the naturally arising, unalienable, inherent rights of every person.

Our founders rejected the early tenets of evolution expressed by the Enlightenment (see Thomas Jefferson On Intelligent Design), and, instead, felt that these inherent rights were evidence of the will of the Supreme Judge of the world. Any government that is “destructive of these ends” is, therefore, not only without legitimate authority, but also at war with Divine Providence.

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.”

Marriage is Not A School: Gay Marriage’s Flawed Analogy

Marriage is like a law school…? So argues the majority of justices in the ruling of the Supreme Court of California on pages 103-104 in “re: Marriages”:

“In this regard, plaintiffs (those same sex couples seeking marriage licenses) persuasively invoke by analogy the decisions of the United States Supreme Court finding inadequate a state’s creation of a separate law school for Black students rather than granting such students access to the University of Texas Law School (Sweatt v. Painter (1950) 339 U.S. 629, 634),67 and a state’s founding of a separate military program for women rather than admitting women to the Virginia Military Institute (United States v. Virginia (1996) 518 U.S. 515, 555-556).”

This analogy is flawed because it posits what it concludes. In issues of prejudice because of racial diversity, the constitutional truth is that all men are created equal. Hence, when we recognize racial diversity, we legislate against prejudice because no matter what the race, we are all humans. When we see gender inequity based on prejudice, we have recourse to the same words and to the same principle. No person should be refused access to the social good that they merit because of a prejudice based on gender because we are all people. The basis for a similar ruling evaporates when the law moves from individuals to couples. To say that all couples are equal before the law, we must say that marriage is not between a man and a woman. The court goes on to say that we must say marriage is..? What does the Court say marriage is? Let’s go with this: The Court defined marriage as “any undefined congress of Party A and Party B” because, since marriage is not between a man and a woman, all are equal before the law.

However, the court’s most profound error is in equating marriage and institutions of public education in any manner. Marriage is an education, but it is not a school. Unlike the equal access to an education, the only equal access to marriage is that which is duly clothed in commitment and free choice. Schools on the other hand, are primarily about the access men and women have to the opportunities provided by society at large. This Court errs grievously by comparing what a marriage is primarily to what a school, a public school no less, primarily, is.

Schools are primarily social in function. Teaching may be more fundamental to human life in the context of a family, but a school by definition is social. Marriage, in contrast, is a very specific and complete access to another person based solely on the commitments and choices of those two individuals. One can easily conceive of marriage as a fundamental building block of society and, therefore, as a liberty, prior to society and its governments. This is impossible in envisioning a school, especially a public school. The caricature of marriage that emerges from the Court’s attempt to draw parallels between these two unlike institutions is grotesque and offensive.

moses

The Court again degrades all humanity by arguing that what we are as people exists, like a school, primarily because of the good graces of government.

What is absurd on its face reveals greater errors in its specifics. The Court also erred in the arcane reasoning it based upon its grotesque analogy. Here is more from pages 103-104:

“As plaintiffs maintain, these high court decisions (Texas Law School and Virginia Military School) demonstrate that even when the state grants ostensibly equal benefits to a previously excluded class (a class that had been denied access, not because of their abilities, but a history of prejudice) through the creation of a new institution, the intangible symbolic differences that remain often are constitutionally significant.”

The two high court decisions alluded to are fine, but their analogy to marriage is ridiculous. No one can blame the plaintiffs for arguing it; that’s what a decent lawyer is supposed to do. However, the idea that the Supreme Court accepted this analogy is both hilarious and tragic. It’s tragic because it is a true reflection of what we have become as a society. Nothing in our public life matters. Anything goes. Judges should know better, but who really cares? Here are the differences that make the analogy of marriages and schools, let’s just say, inadequate:

The ability to marry comes from what we are as people, male and female, more than it is about who we are as people. This is also true of other essential human liberties. Because of what we are as people, we can speak. What we say determines “who we are.” We also have the freedom to worship. This is part of the nature of what we are as people. Who we worship determines who we are as people. We can access marriage because of what we are as human beings, how well our marriages work are the result of who we are as people. Governments that would keep us from speaking, worshiping or marrying are tyrannies, but governments do not provide access or ability to do any of these things. Instead, an ethical or legitimate government’s role is to acknowledge and recognize these innate human abilities as part of the Eternal Designer’s purpose in mankind.

sistine

Additionally, access to schools, especially those mentioned in the Supreme Court decisions cited, unlike any natural right, requires some human merit, some developed innate human ability whether to speak, read, write or reason concerning mathematics. Unlike the analogies at Virginia Tech., and, we hope, to the public high school at issue in Brown vs. The Board of Education, meeting certain qualifications (passing examinations, excelling at one’s coursework) has nothing to do with the right to marry. Hence, when the Court says these two people meet the qualifications we (the Court) set as those necessary to be “married” (they are of the correct age, they can form informed consent, etc), these qualifications are not similar. The individuals meeting such “requirements” do so based on an innate ability to grow and to choose for themselves. These individuals do nothing to “merit” marriage. People cannot merit marriage. Like humanity’s ability worship Whom they choose, the ability to marry is a gift. Nothing people do could ever be enough to merit the ability to worship freely. No, these abilities are part of the gift of life, specifically, the gift of human life. Hence, what one merits is not being withheld by society because of prejudice. How two people behave once they are married determines whether or not the marriage has merit. If this is a civil rights case, it is not a civil rights case that is related to the decisions in Brown vs. the Board of Education, Virginia Tech., or the Texas Law School. Marriage is not a school.

Indeed, if it is a civil rights case, then it is far more analogous to the equal access granted or denied women, as women. Oddly, this is the analogy the Court, in footnote 65, decided did not merit consideration.

“For example, the establishment and maintenance of separate women’s collegiate athletic teams to address the long-standing discrimination against women in the allocation of athletic resources has been found to be constitutionally valid. (See, e.g., O’Connor v. Board of Education of School Dist”

In these cases, the discussion came down not to an unwillingness to recognize the abilities of women to excel in sports. These cases weren’t about denying women the access that they merited simply because of a prejudice against gender itself. All agreed that merit existed and access was deserved. Instead, the issues in these cases came down to problems of access posed by the problems that exist by virtue of what we are as men and women. In civil rights cases of this type, merit and prejudice are not the issue. Instead, we are nonetheless confronted by what we are as people, male and female. Any disregard of who we are as people would have resulted, in these instances, in an injustice to all.

Same sex marriage is not a civil rights issue relating to race, since homosexuality is not a race. Same sex marriage is not a civil rights issue related to religion because it is not a religion. Nor is same sex marriage a civil rights case based on gender for homosexuality is not gender specific. However, if same sex marriage is a civil rights issue, there are cases of resolving inequity in access to society’s benefits that arise for other reasons. However, bringing these analogies up might be offensive to some. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court of California erred: marriage is not a school.