Sore Winners: Religious Right Whine That Married Families Not Forced Into Divorce by CA Court Decision
A day after the California Supreme Court upheld a measure that revoked marriage equality rights, America’s religious right has launched a new set of complaints: that the court did not force the dissolution of more than 18,000 legal marriages obtained by gay and lesbian families during the six months in 2008 that marriage equality was legal in that state.
The anti-gay Web site Americans for Truth About Homosexuality quoted anti-gay activist Randy Thomasson, who lashed out at the court’s justices and called the 18,000 legal unions the court preserved "counterfeit marriages."
Thomasson was quoted as saying, "While it was good that the majority of the justices ruled only man-woman marriages could be performed after Prop. 8 passed, it’s wrong and unconstitutional for the judges to permit counterfeit marriages in clear violation of Prop. 8."
Thomasson based his objection on the language of the measure, which voters narrowly approved last November.
Proposition 8 sought to deprive gay and lesbian families of marriage rights regardless of whether they married before or after the passage of the measure by popular vote, claimed Thomasson, who is the president of Save California.com, which purports to champion "children and families" by, evidently, advocating for state-imposed divorce.
Fumed Thomasson, "An arm and a leg have been cut off the natural institution of marriage in California."
Given the total population of California versus the 18,000 families the court declined to summarily and forcibly divorce, a more apt metaphor might be that a fingernail was clipped--if, that is, it weren’t for the fact that the ruling upholds a measure that, until repealed, bars access to the institution of marriage to countless families, present and future.
Seethed Thomasson, "The judges have ignored the straightforward, retroactive effect of Prop. 8, which specified that the only valid marriage in California ’is’ between a man and a woman, ’regardless of when’ the marriage was performed.
"This is unconstitutional and unjust," Tomasson added, going on to attack the judicial integrity of the justices according to the standard boilerplate of the religious right.
"The court’s own rules require that the counterfeit marriages be declared null and void. But instead of respecting the clear text of Prop. 8 and by ignoring the clarifying ballot statements, the court has gone with its own feelings and its own social agenda in violation of the judges’ solemn oaths to uphold the written constitution. The voters have been handed back an altered ballot."
In addition to fretting over what the meaning of the word "is" is, Thomasson made the claim that children would be affected by the court not imposing divorce on already-married gay and lesbian families.
"By allowing these numerous false marriages to stand, the Supreme Court is holding out to impressionable boys and girls the unnatural role model of homosexual ’marriages,’" Thomasson stated (quote marks around the word "marriage" are Thomasson’s).
"This is not what the people of California voted for. They voted to ensure that the only marriage in California is a marriage between a man and a woman."
Anti-gay organization Liberty Counsel, which more or less took credit for the ultimate repeal of marriage equality (some might say "family liberty") in California, also decried the court’s affirmation that families already married would remain married.
"This part of the ruling makes little sense, because a constitutional amendment like this one means that going forward, that which happened in the past is no longer recognized," text at the Liberty Counsel site claimed.
The text sought to justify this position through analogy to other legal precedents. "When the Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution was ratified, slavery was abolished. Slave holders could not claim grandfather rights to own another person."
Added the text, "When the Eighteenth Amendment was passed, the manufacture, sale and transportation of intoxicating liquors ceased. If the licenses that were issued in this limited time frame remain valid, then what about licenses outside the state that were issued in this same period? If a person with such a license moves to California, can their license also be recognized?"
Declared the text, "Of course, the answer to both questions should be ’No!’"
Or, perhaps, "No, no, no!!"
The experts in family life that are California’s Catholic Bishops also registered their displeasure that the civic process had not fully reflected their theological beliefs.
Bishop Stephen Blaire was quoted in a May 27 article at Catholic Culture as saying, "We laud the California Supreme Court’s confirmation of Proposition 8, which preserves the traditional understanding of marriage in the state’s constitution.
"We, however, are disappointed that the same Court validated the interim same-sex ’marriages.’" (Quotes around the word "marriages" are Blaire’s.)
