While the mainstream media continues largely to ignore the issue, it became clear to me this week, given the robust response of HUMAN EVENTS’ readers to my column on the implications of same-sex “marriage” in California, that for a great many Americans, marriage still matters. And as the California State Supreme Court on Wednesday refused to put a hold on its radical ruling, same-sex “marriages” are schedule to begin this month.
You might think that the liberal establishment would be playing a wedding march and detailing the implications of their judicial coup. But instead all we hear is silence from Big Media regarding this high-handed, cataclysmic shift in public policy. There is also a lot of misinformation widely available on the internet.
So, I decided to consult an expert. Glen Lavy, lead Attorney for Proposition 22 Legal Defense and Education Fund and Senior Counsel with Alliance Defense Fund, has been a champion in the case and at the center of building the defense for marriage.
For Lavy, who argued the same-sex “marriage” case before the California Supreme Court, the significance of the California ruling is clear: “It is the most outrageous judicial activism that we’ve seen. This is far worse than Massachusetts.” By “Massachusetts,” Lavy was referring to that state’s Supreme Court’s 2003 ruling that ordered same-sex “marriage,” becoming the first state to do so.
According to Lavy, the California decision was “far worse” because the Supreme Court overruled the will of the people, expressed only eight years earlier when 61 percent of Californians voted to keep marriage as the union of one man and one woman. In contrast, Lavy contends that in Massachusetts there was no statutory law defining marriage at the time, so the court wasn’t re-writing legislation.
Sadly the state court once again disrespected the voters and the political process this week by refusing to put a stay on same-sex “marriage” until after the November vote on a marriage protection amendment.
As Lavy observed, “If the voters turn down the marriage amendment, then they will have same-sex ‘marriage’. It will have been done through a democratic process, so we can’t complain about the courts. But if, as we anticipate, they [California voters] protect marriage, the court’s decision will have no effect. And there would be no reason to have thousands of same-sex ‘marriage’ licenses just hanging out there in limbo.”
So why push the same-sex “marriage” forward when the voters may reject it? To start a legal avalanche. Lavy said, “We anticipate that there would be a lot of litigation around the country demanding recognition of those same-sex ‘marriage’ licenses.”
In an op-ed written immediately following the California ruling, Lavy predicted a backlash at the polls if homosexual “marriages” are allowed to take place in California before voters are given the opportunity to respond. He wrote, “Voters across the nation made it clear in 2004 that they do not like courts or politicians ignoring the will of the people, and they are likely to make this point again. …Many voters who aren’t particularly concerned about marriage don’t like elitist judges reversing public policy that has been established through the political process.”
According to Lavy, the court came to its conclusion without asking a simple question: Why should the state regulate marriage? After all, as Lavy pointed out, marriage is the sole private, consensual, intimate relationship that the state regulates.
Instead of asking that fundamental question, the court focused on why people want to get married, which, according to Lavy, “is like evaluating a traffic law based on why people drive instead of why the state should regulate traffic. Only the latter is relevant to the validity of any regulation. And the state’s reason for regulating marriage is what is relevant to the validity of the marriage laws.”
So while the court allowed its heartstrings to be tugged by same-sex “marriage” attorneys who talked about committed same-sex couples that had been together for 30 or 40 years and wanted only equal rights to marriage, it overlooked the primary state interest in marriage, its inextricable link with children and the welfare of families. Lavy said:
“The other side argues, ‘well our children deserve protection too.’ That isn’t the point. The point is that same-sex couples will never have biological children. Marriage has always been focused on creating that legal bond between the parents and their biological children.”
There are many reasons for the state not to recognize same-sex “marriage,” not the least of which is that the empirical research shows the dissolution rate of same sex relationships, including “marriages,” is two times (for male same-sex couples) and three times (for females same-sex couples) as high as the already unacceptably high rate of dissolution among opposite sex couples.
This should be especially troubling for the state given that, according to a new study by Georgia State economist Ben Scafidi, family dissolution and single parenthood cost taxpayers $112 billion a year. According to Scafidi’s report, the annual cost of family breakdown in California alone is $4.8 billion. That is something for California voters to ponder this November, as they decide whether to vote for an amendment that would protect traditional marriage.
Still, it is not economic issues that ignite the passion to save the most foundational union know to humankind. Every society, every major religion, every great nation has enshrined the union of man and woman as vital and even sacred. To throw that away on the whim of four judges is not only undemocratic; it shows a fundamental lack of understanding of the beauty and benefit of marriage to all of us. It may be a union under fire, and its reputation may be frayed, but it’s worth saving.
