Saturday, May 17, 2008

CA Rogue Judges & Their Judicial Fiat

Below is a summary of one CA dissenting judge's written opinion about the four rogue judges and their homosexual pseudo-marriage decision:

But a bare majority of this court, not satisfied with the pace of democratic change, now abruptly forestalls that process and substitutes, by judicial fiat, its own social policy views for those expressed by the People themselves.

Undeterred by the strong weight of state and federal law and authority, 4 the majority invents a new constitutional right, immune from the ordinary process of legislative consideration. The majority finds that our Constitution suddenly demands no less than a permanent redefinition of marriage, regardless of the popular will.

In doing so, the majority holds, in effect, that the Legislature has done indirectly what the Constitution prohibits it from doing directly.

I cannot join this exercise in legal jujitsu, by which the Legislature’s own weight is used against it to create a constitutional right from whole cloth, defeat the People’s will, and invalidate a statute otherwise immune from legislative interference. Though the majority insists otherwise, its pronouncement seriously oversteps the judicial power.

The majority (referring to the judges) has violated these principles. It simply does not have the right to erase, then recast, the age-old definition of marriage, as virtually all societies have understood it, in order to satisfy its own contemporary notions of equality and justice.

The California Constitution says nothing about the rights of same-sex couples to marry. On the contrary, as the majority concedes, our original Constitution, effective from the moment of statehood, evidenced an assumption that marriage was between partners of the opposite sex.

Written by BAXTER, J

HT: Stacy Harp for summary.


Susan Smith said...

Dear Christine—

How refreshing to drink from TalkWisdom on this beautiful Shabbat (Saturday) morning here in Columbia, South Carolina.

We are not to put our light under a bowl, but on a stand for all to see. “In the same way, let your light shine before men, that they may see your good deeds and praise your father in heaven” (MAT 5:16).

This post shines a bright and clear light for the world to see. Praise the Lord! God bless those in America and all over the earth who can see and hear the truth.

Let Jesus the Messiah continue to bless you abundantly with revelation by the Holy Spirit as you continue to be salt and light. Much love to my “little” sister on the West coast. (ss)

Stacy Harp said...

Hey Susan,

Thanks for complimenting Christine's post...since I wrote it first, and she snagged it from my site, I'm complimented :)

Christine, the quotes you posted have
ellipsis in them, so people should know that what you quoted is not strictly all in order. There are other words in between the quotes I can see that on my site :)

Christinewjc said...

I'm sorry Stacy. I didn't realize that. I thought it was a direct quote of "J. Baxter." That's what I get for not seeking out the entire document and doing my homework reading it!

I will make the change and give you credit for your summary.

mike rucker said...

i read a post on another blog the other day, proposing the following solution: that we have two types of marriages, one in civil court, and one in churches. the civil court could allow gay unions, churches could hold to their beliefs. church marriages might then be recognized in both avenues, and churches could determine if the civil ones were recognized there. i suppose companies could elect to grant benefits to either, both or neither, but the law could not mandate that a company has to honor each church marriage, but would be subject to laws in the public arena. anyway, i think the origin of the thought was g.k. chesterton in actuality, and i'm probably mangling the idea as much as i'm accurately remembering it.

seemed like an interesting idea to think about.

mike rucker
fairburn, georgia, usa

Susan Smith said...

Dear Stacy—

You are most welcome. “The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit” (JOH 3:8).

Praise God, we can find “salt & light” all over the earth, if we have eyes to see and ears to hear.

God bless you from South Carolina and Shabbat Shalom. (ss)

Christinewjc said...

The following is a good article on this subject. Some of J. Baxter's quotes are included in it.

Will judges let people define marriage?
Advocate plans to request 'stay' of homosexual-union ruling

Lots of additional links that demonstrate how volatile this topic has been here in CA, as well as across America.

Anonymous said...

I was so glad to hear this morning that the state attorney general and the Legislative Research Service is already working to ensure that this ballot initiative does not appear on the November ballot. According to the California Constitution, voters may amend the state constitution by voter initiative but they may not "alter" its original content. Since the court found that restricting marriage to heterosexual couples violates the constitution's equal protection clause it is illegal to permit this ballot initiative on the ballot.

Christinewjc said...

All the more reason for a Federal Marriage Amendment. Right now, it's 28 states that have voted to keep marriage as the union of one man and one woman vs. 2 states that had rogue judges trump the will of the people to "find" a "right" that doesn't exist in either the MA or CA state constititutions.

Anonymous said...

Gay activists, with the acquiescence of the California high court, want to remove one of the criteria of marriage while keeping all the rest. Yet if it’s discriminatory to gays to require that marriage be between a man and a woman, why isn’t it discriminatory to Mormons and Muslims to require that it remain between two people? Isn’t incestuous marriage also between “consenting adults” who have a right to equal protection of the laws? And why doesn’t the Fourteenth Amendment protect the fellow who wants to walk down the aisle with his poodle on the grounds that “I love my dog and my dog loves me”?

The point is not that gay marriage is indistinguishable from child marriage or polygamy. The point is that any definition, and marriage is no exception, includes some people and excludes others. Consequently it’s unreasonable to say that gays have a constitutional right to override the definition but other groups do not. The court’s real justification seems to have little to do with constitutional reasoning and everything to do with an assertion of political power.

So how long before we can look forward to a father "marrying" his adult daughter? For that matter, the father may just want to "marry" his adult son, instead. And who's to say the "loving, consenting" adults can't? After all, once we've opened up the floodgates and distorted the millenia-old definition and concept of marriage, how can we then say to certain groups of people, "well, we changed the definition of marriage to allow them to be married, but not you"?
Isn't that awfully "bigoted" and "intolerant"?

Signs like these tell me that America has seen its best days and is now declining.
-Bill Sikes

Christinewjc said...

Anonymous, (not Bill Sikes)

I did not approve your comment because I do not allow using the name of the LORD in vain on this blog.

If you would like to repost your comment without it, then I will approve it.

FYI, it is also a good idea not to insult the blog owner (re: the Daily Kos post comment you wrote...if that was you.)

Susan Smith said...

Dear Christine—

I was unaware you do not allow the Name of God to be used in vain at your blog. No wonder you named it Talk WISDOM.

God has placed us “in” Jesus the Messiah and HE has become for us WISDOM from God (1CO 1:30).

I thank God for the salt and light He reveals to you that you are sharing with the world so often.

Have a wonderful is almost my time to log off now and this reminds me of our chats when I was across the ocean! You are a blessing in many lives this day. (ss)