The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit just ruled that Proposition 8, California’s constitutional marriage amendment defining marriage between one man and one woman, is unconstitutional. This decision is one of the most radical one to come out of a circuit that is known for its radical rulings. It is no wonder why this circuit is the most overturned in the country.
The decision presents a clear example of judicial activism, where you can see the court struggle to find the arguments to substantiate what it ideologically wants to do. Neither law, nor fact stood a chance before these judges.
To advance their cause, the Ninth Circuit actually concludes that the only plausible explanation for Californians to want to define marriage as the union between one man and one woman is “the constitutionally illegitimate basis of animus toward” homosexuals (internal quotes omitted). Every reasonable person knows this not to be true. Most of us know supporters of traditional marriage in California and we know that their intent is not to be hostile to homosexuals, but an honest desire to preserve an institution that has served as the foundation of our society.
The court’s generalization shows its true intent.
Supporters of traditional marriage provided many reasonable bases for preserving marriage as the union between one man and one woman, including two that the dissenting judge focused in disagreeing with the majority:
(1) a responsible procreation theory, justifying the inducement of marital recognition only for opposite-sex couples, because it “steers procreation into marriage” because opposite-sex couples are the only couples who can procreate children accidentally or irresponsibly; and (2) an optimal parenting theory, justifying the inducement of marital recognition only for opposite-sex couples, because the family structure of two committed biological parents-one man and one woman-is the optimal partnership for raising children.
Of course, these two as many others are completely reasonable basis for Proposition 8. But again, blinded by their desire to advance the cause of “equality” and “tolerance,” these judges seemed to twist and turn laws and facts, until they fit. They dismissed these rationales by simply saying things like, “Proposition 8 had absolutely no effect on the ability of same-sex couples to become parents or the manner in which children are raised in California.”
The court conveniently chooses to ignore the reason the state got involved in the business of marriage in the first place. The state gets involved in marriage at all only because it has an interest in promoting certain behavior. In the case of the unique relationship between one man and one woman, it wants to encourage couples to rear children within the context of marriage, which offers the best chance for children to become productive members of society.
Even though the court recognizes the importance of the institution of marriage in our society, saying for example that, “We do not celebrate when two people merge their bank accounts; we celebrate when a couple marries.” Not to mention its apparent attempt at humor by using Groucho Marx, Sinatra and Marilyn Monroe, among others, to illustrate how revered the institution of marriage is. The court still concludes that it is irrational for Californians to think that preserving marriage for the union between one man and one woman would encourage couples to marry so that their children could have that stability in their development.
If this makes no sense to you, you are not alone. The Ninth Circuit concocts a convoluted delusion to make their decision somewhat sustainable, at least among the most radical readers. According to them, it is not the supporters of same-sex marriage that are redefining the word marriage, it is the supporters of traditional marriage that are doing so.
Yes, apparently same-sex marriage had always been recognized in California until those bigots enacted Proposition 8 on November 4, 2008, “to eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry,” for no other reason than hostility towards homosexuals.
This is the very dangerous path of the judicial activist. Their ideology has so blinded them that reality morphs to fit their parameters. Hard to argue against that.