“We have now entered the final phase of the boom-bust cycle--the search for villains for past ill deeds and the search for reforms to prevent future calamities. But in the panic to sell shares in U.S. companies, investors are deaf to good news about the resilience and productivity of the American economy just as they were deaf to bad news at the height of the market euphoria.” These words, penned by Laura Tyson in her 2002 article, “After Irrational Exuberance, Irrational Pessimism” are, once again, almost completely relevant to today’s market. Perhaps what’s missing is the good news. Oil going down is apparently something approaching a positive, but that’s it. However, because of the consistency of human deafness to market fundamentals, Ms. Tyson’s article is almost always partially relevant. Here’s the sad little story rife with truths.
From 2003-2005, real estate, like the equity markets of the late 1990’s, had that peculiar reek of impending disaster that emerges from willful ignorance to market forces by those who should know better. A March 2008 REIT Wrecks article commendably explores the death of real estate’s canary: in 2005 rental occupancies fell despite declining rents. The article, “Play Subprime Safely With These Residential REITs” carefully exposes the Spiderman-like tingling those who specialized in rental properties had. They could smell the gas of the broken main. They knew that all that was driving real estate was the money supply. The loan amounts kept increasing as the credit requirements decreased. The only impediment to receiving the cash was having a residential deed to sign.
Interest rates finally began to rise, but they were answered with more easy money. After all, the changing bankruptcy laws of 2005 (making Chapter 7 debt forgiveness more difficult to come by) meant that more foreclosed assets would be available to offset these bad loans. Even more importantly, as far as the speculative eye could see more and more non-standard loans were coming down the pike. Hence, real estate had to continue to rise as the free money bid them well above their actual values. If real estate had to continue to spiral upwards, then even foreclosed properties would be worth more than the original assets. Hence, easy loans were more easily packaged into marketable “securities” that, based on an implied connection between Fannie, Feddie and the Feds, met only the most cavalier inspections. Who’d know? Who’d say anything? The only evidence of this covenant with disaster would be the mushrooming commissions on portfolio mangers’ Christmas bonuses.
However, even the “victims,” those with no credit who took exorbitant interest rates hits, laughed out loud as they signed and swore on a thousand dotted lines. Even they thought they’d hit the Vegas craps. “Why worry?” they thought; they could to sell for a 15% profit in a year. That would be more money in one place than they’d seen in their whole lives! Everyone was doing it… Then oil hit the roof, and the predatory lenders headed for the high grass. Everyone knows the rest.
Just as in the dotcom bubble, those who should have known did know. But why pull the fire alarm and alert the police? Instead, lawless bands of speculators who knew better, weren’t betting on the American dream. No, they were betting they could get out of town before the three alarm conflagration was noised abroad. The parable? Markets don’t need corrections, people do. The moral: unregulated markets will result in great prosperity only in proportion to the sense of responsibility and the recognition of the ethical source of prosperity owned by those that participate.
California, here’s the allegory: As free markets are to ethics, so is a great nation’s government to the truth. As the real estate fundamentals were eroded by senseless monetary expansion, so the credibility of our government will be eroded if we enshrine lies in our laws. Vote “Yes” on Proposition 8.
As depressing as today’s corruption of our markets may be, it has a precedent. As Frank Shostak discusses in his article, “The Prophet of the Great Depression,” two Austrian’s, Friedrich Hayek and Ludwig von Mises, based on their theories of credit expansion, predicted the Roaring 20’s would end calamitously. The Austrians used a cool math based on exchange rates, but the reality is that no wizard-like forecasts are required. Indeed, even the victims of this latest real estate credit bubble knew what they were up against. They knew they were at cross purposes with the basic principles of responsibility, ethics, and, hence, genuine prosperity. We all finally got what all involved already owned.
Individuals cannot live a lie and escape the consequences. Don’t try to tell such people however, for you will be mocked to scorn. Likewise, societies cannot live a lie and long endure. But what if that lie is consecrated by the consensus of one’s fellow creatures, as was the run on equities in the 1920’s and the run on real estate in the twenty-first century? It doesn’t matter; such a nation and such a person cannot prosper. Even if so many thrill with the lie that one might say the lie is “normal,” a lie it is nonetheless, and who are so heedless cannot prosper. Whether it is abandoned at the church door or at the cork of those spirits that cry “you can’t prove it!” discard reason at your peril.
Thursday, October 16, 2008
Saturday, September 20, 2008
Why the ACLU Opposes Proposition 8
There are many powerful people who purport to believe that religion, "the opiate of the people (Karl Marx)," is a scourge on humanity. Altruists, they purport to genuinely believe that society would be better if all religions, especially Christianity, were expunged from planet earth.
That’s not a constitutional view of course. Freedom of religion is as sacred as the freedom of speech. Like the right to marry, it is part of what is innate in people and what is part of who we are as humans prior to government. Of course governments need to, as much as is possible, keep out of the business of policing religions. Any law or ordinance that puts government into the business of arbitrating religious belief should be shunned. Indeed, governments ought to be in the business of promoting and exalting those freedoms that abound in a free people. This includes the “right to marry” and the practice of religion openly and freely.
The ACLU may believe in the right of same-sex couples to call their unions a marriage too. That’s fine; however, if Reverend James Wilson is correct, perhaps it has a more nefarious agenda in mind. Perhaps there is a secret treasure to be exhumed from the corpse of our mangled California family law. With a victory against Proposition 8 in hand, perhaps the ACLU can end religion in public life completely. We will be able to think religious thoughts, but we will not be able to either speak our beliefs or practice them in public.
Reverend James Wilson wrote in his September 15 article “Proposition 8 protects freedom of religion” at Reading.com that:
“The state Supreme Court decision OK'ing civil rights laws for suppression of doctors' consciences is …part of an alarming pattern. The decision held doctors liable after they refused — for religious reasons — to inseminate a lesbian. The doctors referred her; there was no injury to the woman as she was inseminated and gave birth. … But the court said doctors lose their right to free speech and religion when licensed to practice medicine in California. And — if the experience of northern Europe and Canada is any indicator — pastors will lose those rights should Proposition 8 fail in November. That is because courts in those nations have found pastors (and any who express politically incorrect views) guilty of ‘hate speech.’:”
One would ordinarily think this is ridiculously alarmist, but reading the series of bilious comments by readers of Wilson’s article gave me pause. Here are several:
• “Rev. James Wilson, it's a shame you don't follow Jesus' teachings to love one another instead of spreading hate like this column.
• Practice what you preach.”
• You have no idea what the Bible says, do ya...
Rev. Wilson did not quote the Bible, but anyone who has read Romans chapter 1 knows that he did not quote it out of courtesy.
• “He's just being a hypocrite.”
• it IS "hate speech", MR. Wilson (you don't deserve to be addressed as "Reverend" - that title should be reserved for people who attempt to reflect God's love and compassion in their lives).
Rev. Wilson’s most controversial line was that “love without truth is not love.” I admit that I’ve picked the most obvious examples of spiteful disregard found in the reader comments. Nonetheless, Reverend Wilson’s article is simply one of a tremendous variety of instances in which the volume of the spiteful ad hominem attacks increases exponentially when faith is mentioned at all. The raw enmity expressed in any number of reader comments associated with those expressing religious disagreements with homosexuality itself is a firestorm. Whether the religion is Roman Catholic, Mormon, or Muslim, the hate as furious as it is obvious.
Of course I had to get into the act. I commented:
“The Reverend's article, although restricted to an audience of Bible believing Christians, nevertheless proves its broader point by the overwhelming anger and hate personally directed at its author for his faith. Are we to trust any movement that so indiscriminately hates those who offer reasonable disagreements with it based on personal religious beliefs?”
Since my post was not faith based, the response I received from a fellow reader, “specialK” was reasonable and well-measured:
“It's not for his faith, rather his active campaigning to rescind and eliminate the civil rights of a small minority of citizens when he himself and the majority here enjoy the legal recognition of your primary relationship. To claim that his rights are being impinged on because I now have the same, or shall I say, equal civil (not religious mind you) rights, should not in any way interfere with the Rev's religion. The hate must only be coming from those who suffer from ignorance and fear.”
However, “specialK”’s response was not to the point. He, like many, did not see that freedom of speech and freedom of religion could be impacted by the laws of California. He (or she) thinks that it is alarmist to assume that letting same-sex couples say they're married could, in any way, impact freedom of religion. Still, the motive of those seeking to defeat Proposition 8 should be relevant to us. Is the motive of those who seek to defeat Proposition 8 less government? Plainly not. If it is more government, then what is it they most seek to govern? Likewise, all voters might want to ask, ‘what segment of society are the opponents of Proposition 8 most willing disparage?’
My articles have not been addressed to a faith audience, and so, because I understand the nature of our competitive Western society in which we take adversarial positions in order pursue the truth, I haven’t been particularly troubled by readers who ignore my arguments and then endeavor to defame me because my thesis is disagreeable to them. That’s all part of the American smear machine we call our national discourse. Even though the often decried ad hominem attack is a well-known logical fallacy, it is as beloved of 21st century America as apple pie and college football.
I also recognize that very often the more intense and unnecessarily disagreeable disagreements contain a question not answered in an article. That intensity is not what I’m writing about. There is a significant difference, an intense intolerance, shown by opponents of Proposition 8 to those who have religious beliefs. They feel entitled to this intolerance. Voters who value religious freedom should be hesitant to ally themselves with such intolerance.
Besides, who knows, perhaps there is something sacred about humanity. Who knows… maybe there is something true in these ancient religions handed down from the mists of time. I know, I can hear the barrage coming now. This article is not for them; it’s for you.
That’s not a constitutional view of course. Freedom of religion is as sacred as the freedom of speech. Like the right to marry, it is part of what is innate in people and what is part of who we are as humans prior to government. Of course governments need to, as much as is possible, keep out of the business of policing religions. Any law or ordinance that puts government into the business of arbitrating religious belief should be shunned. Indeed, governments ought to be in the business of promoting and exalting those freedoms that abound in a free people. This includes the “right to marry” and the practice of religion openly and freely.
The ACLU may believe in the right of same-sex couples to call their unions a marriage too. That’s fine; however, if Reverend James Wilson is correct, perhaps it has a more nefarious agenda in mind. Perhaps there is a secret treasure to be exhumed from the corpse of our mangled California family law. With a victory against Proposition 8 in hand, perhaps the ACLU can end religion in public life completely. We will be able to think religious thoughts, but we will not be able to either speak our beliefs or practice them in public.
Reverend James Wilson wrote in his September 15 article “Proposition 8 protects freedom of religion” at Reading.com that:
“The state Supreme Court decision OK'ing civil rights laws for suppression of doctors' consciences is …part of an alarming pattern. The decision held doctors liable after they refused — for religious reasons — to inseminate a lesbian. The doctors referred her; there was no injury to the woman as she was inseminated and gave birth. … But the court said doctors lose their right to free speech and religion when licensed to practice medicine in California. And — if the experience of northern Europe and Canada is any indicator — pastors will lose those rights should Proposition 8 fail in November. That is because courts in those nations have found pastors (and any who express politically incorrect views) guilty of ‘hate speech.’:”
One would ordinarily think this is ridiculously alarmist, but reading the series of bilious comments by readers of Wilson’s article gave me pause. Here are several:
• “Rev. James Wilson, it's a shame you don't follow Jesus' teachings to love one another instead of spreading hate like this column.
• Practice what you preach.”
• You have no idea what the Bible says, do ya...
Rev. Wilson did not quote the Bible, but anyone who has read Romans chapter 1 knows that he did not quote it out of courtesy.
• “He's just being a hypocrite.”
• it IS "hate speech", MR. Wilson (you don't deserve to be addressed as "Reverend" - that title should be reserved for people who attempt to reflect God's love and compassion in their lives).
Rev. Wilson’s most controversial line was that “love without truth is not love.” I admit that I’ve picked the most obvious examples of spiteful disregard found in the reader comments. Nonetheless, Reverend Wilson’s article is simply one of a tremendous variety of instances in which the volume of the spiteful ad hominem attacks increases exponentially when faith is mentioned at all. The raw enmity expressed in any number of reader comments associated with those expressing religious disagreements with homosexuality itself is a firestorm. Whether the religion is Roman Catholic, Mormon, or Muslim, the hate as furious as it is obvious.
Of course I had to get into the act. I commented:
“The Reverend's article, although restricted to an audience of Bible believing Christians, nevertheless proves its broader point by the overwhelming anger and hate personally directed at its author for his faith. Are we to trust any movement that so indiscriminately hates those who offer reasonable disagreements with it based on personal religious beliefs?”
Since my post was not faith based, the response I received from a fellow reader, “specialK” was reasonable and well-measured:
“It's not for his faith, rather his active campaigning to rescind and eliminate the civil rights of a small minority of citizens when he himself and the majority here enjoy the legal recognition of your primary relationship. To claim that his rights are being impinged on because I now have the same, or shall I say, equal civil (not religious mind you) rights, should not in any way interfere with the Rev's religion. The hate must only be coming from those who suffer from ignorance and fear.”
However, “specialK”’s response was not to the point. He, like many, did not see that freedom of speech and freedom of religion could be impacted by the laws of California. He (or she) thinks that it is alarmist to assume that letting same-sex couples say they're married could, in any way, impact freedom of religion. Still, the motive of those seeking to defeat Proposition 8 should be relevant to us. Is the motive of those who seek to defeat Proposition 8 less government? Plainly not. If it is more government, then what is it they most seek to govern? Likewise, all voters might want to ask, ‘what segment of society are the opponents of Proposition 8 most willing disparage?’
My articles have not been addressed to a faith audience, and so, because I understand the nature of our competitive Western society in which we take adversarial positions in order pursue the truth, I haven’t been particularly troubled by readers who ignore my arguments and then endeavor to defame me because my thesis is disagreeable to them. That’s all part of the American smear machine we call our national discourse. Even though the often decried ad hominem attack is a well-known logical fallacy, it is as beloved of 21st century America as apple pie and college football.
I also recognize that very often the more intense and unnecessarily disagreeable disagreements contain a question not answered in an article. That intensity is not what I’m writing about. There is a significant difference, an intense intolerance, shown by opponents of Proposition 8 to those who have religious beliefs. They feel entitled to this intolerance. Voters who value religious freedom should be hesitant to ally themselves with such intolerance.
Besides, who knows, perhaps there is something sacred about humanity. Who knows… maybe there is something true in these ancient religions handed down from the mists of time. I know, I can hear the barrage coming now. This article is not for them; it’s for you.
Tuesday, August 5, 2008
A Rewrite of the California Constitution I Missed
Connor Boyak on posted a great article on his blog at:http://www.connorboyack.com/blog/the-protected-class-of-sexuality.
He does a great job pointing out that "re Marriage Cases" has profoundly changed the Constitution and the law of California by adding "sexual orientation" as a protected class with regards to equal rights. Sexual orientation is not a race, a gender or a religion. Despite all the whining from liberals, sexual orientation is not, constitutionally, a civil rights issue. There are laws on the books in California that do, however, recognize sexual orientation as a "protected class." Judge George in "re Marriages" uses this language written by the California legislature as enough of a reason to rewrite the Constitution of California:
“[e]xpanding the rights and creating responsibilities of registered domestic partners would further California’s interests in promoting family relationships and protecting family members during life crises, and would reduce discrimination on the bases of sex and sexual orientation in a manner consistent with the requirements of the California Constitution."
He is also correct about the serious impact that this has on jurisprudence in California. As as dissenting Jurist Baxter wrote on page 22 of his dissent:
"As the majority also notes, the issue is one of first impression in California. I find that circumstance highly significant. Considering the current status of gays and lesbians as citizens of 21st-century California, the majority fails to persuade me we should now hold that they qualify, under our state Constitution, for the extraordinary protection accorded to suspect classes" (my emphasis).
Connor is correct. It's time for Proposition 9: "Equal protection laws in California only apply to race, religion, and gender."
Meanwhile, a "Yes" vote on Proposition 8 will reduce a great deal of the damage this Court has done.
He does a great job pointing out that "re Marriage Cases" has profoundly changed the Constitution and the law of California by adding "sexual orientation" as a protected class with regards to equal rights. Sexual orientation is not a race, a gender or a religion. Despite all the whining from liberals, sexual orientation is not, constitutionally, a civil rights issue. There are laws on the books in California that do, however, recognize sexual orientation as a "protected class." Judge George in "re Marriages" uses this language written by the California legislature as enough of a reason to rewrite the Constitution of California:
“[e]xpanding the rights and creating responsibilities of registered domestic partners would further California’s interests in promoting family relationships and protecting family members during life crises, and would reduce discrimination on the bases of sex and sexual orientation in a manner consistent with the requirements of the California Constitution."
He is also correct about the serious impact that this has on jurisprudence in California. As as dissenting Jurist Baxter wrote on page 22 of his dissent:
"As the majority also notes, the issue is one of first impression in California. I find that circumstance highly significant. Considering the current status of gays and lesbians as citizens of 21st-century California, the majority fails to persuade me we should now hold that they qualify, under our state Constitution, for the extraordinary protection accorded to suspect classes" (my emphasis).
Connor is correct. It's time for Proposition 9: "Equal protection laws in California only apply to race, religion, and gender."
Meanwhile, a "Yes" vote on Proposition 8 will reduce a great deal of the damage this Court has done.
Tuesday, July 29, 2008
Another Genius!
I was amazed when I read the introductory paragraph to Jennifer Robach Morse’s Marriage and the Limits of Contract only to find my own thoughts penned two years before I ever thought of them. Sadly, as one who thinks great thoughts can make a difference, I had to humbly link to Ms. Morse’s article because she articulates these ideas so well. Here’s the URL: http://www.hoover.org/publications/policyreview/2939396.html
Saturday, July 26, 2008
Supreme Deception: the Right to Deceive, Part III
Even on the surface, the idea of same-sex marriage must be either a lie or a deceit; hence, any court’s opinion that is engaged in “legalizing” such a thing must also be replete with lies or immersed in deception. In “redefining” marriage without admitting that it has done so, the Supreme Court of California’s opinion is riddled with deceptions. The California Supreme Court has masked its reduction of marriage to the mere legality that it conferred on civil unions by using the misleading terms “family relationship” and “family unit” to describe homosexual relationships and civil unions. Furthermore, the Court’s opinion use of this misleading terminology generates the appearance that previous courts' opinions and precedents support the benefits of, and state interests in, gay marriage. In fact, the opinion refers to no evidence whatsoever from previous case law or precedent that the state has either an abiding interest in, or that individuals derive substantial benefit from, gay marriage.
Whether by design or by incompetence, the Court’s opinion uses circular reasoning throughout. The opinion supposes that marriage is not between a man and a woman so that it may find an offended class and conclude that marriage, indeed, must not be only between a man and a woman. Finally, not satisfied with an opinion that is so inadequate that it deceives only the public, the Court produces several passages in which it seems to have conferred the right to deceive the public on the plaintiffs. Deceiving people is what the Court has, directly or indirectly, sanctioned by its discussion of “privacy rights” on page 105 below:
“Plaintiffs point out that one consequence of the coexistence of two parallel types of familial relationship (marriage and domestic partnerships) is that — in the numerous everyday social, employment, and governmental settings in which an individual is asked whether he or she “is married or single” — an individual who is a domestic partner and who accurately responds to the question by disclosing that status will (as a realistic matter) be disclosing his or her homosexual orientation, even if he or she would rather not do so under the circumstances and even if that information is totally irrelevant in the setting in question.”
The opinion of the majority in “re Marriages” explains that disclosing one’s sexual orientation is protected under a right to privacy, but the Court’s resolution of the issue should not be to sanction intentional deception as a remedy. Under this court’s ruling same sex couples may mislead an employer, whether it is a government office or a private enterprise, by leading individuals to believe that their status is heterosexual. That is, they may rest assured that when they say they are married , their employer or insurance company will understand the ordinary sense of the word and assume they are heterosexual. Doesn’t the state have an interest in deploring all acts of deception, especially as it relates to its own offices? Instead, this court has sanctioned the deceptions and provided the means of deception. Is deception, then, simply a matter of course and necessity to the California Supreme Court? Shall we consider this evidence of the intention of the court itself to deceive the public with its ruling and its opinion? Doesn't it seem that the court recognizes that the high end of “equality” justifies deception? Should we assume that the Court itself with its high view of equality and equity felt that, for itself too, deception as practically necessary is a dogma worthy of application? If we should so decide, fellow Californians, what then should we do? You know very well what you must do. You must recall these judges.
Nor is the foregoing deception seemingly advocated by the Court without potentially serious implications for insurance, credit, and medical institutions. Although the court recognized that some of these requests for information are not relevant, the discretion on when to deceive seems to be entirely in the hands of a member of a same sex partnership.
Some may argue that the destruction of the word marriage and its meaning would result in “marriage” would no longer implying heterosexuality. Hence, there would be no deception. However, until the process of reconstructing documents in which one’s sexual orientation is necessary information and, instance by instance, allowing courts to decide upon this necessity, many instances of deception on important matters will have been perpetrated and seemingly sanctioned by this Court.
Nor is such deception a necessary instrument for achieving equality in the United States of America. No one can seriously imagine women seeking equal opportunity being able to get away with bubbling in "man" on their employment applications. No, in order to equalize the playing field women proudly declared their gender and insisted on access. Likewise, African Americans proudly declared their identities as they demanded the equal rights they were entitled to under the law.
Perhaps religions have had the "option" of “going public” with their beliefs through the years. Notice how well that has gone? The religions such as Islam that state their creeds by their apparel and their deeds have a far greater opportunity for recognition and accommodation under U.S. Laws than do the more timid believers who obey court and statute despite the outcry of their consciences. Secrecy is no ally of civil rights. Not only does the Court appear to confer the right to deceive on a special segment of the population, it undermines the very equality is seeks to establish. The gay community ought to rise up and vote “yes” on California’s proposition 8, not only so they are not embarrassed by being part of a ruling that must go down in infamy, but so that their own movement for equal rights and recognition is not undermined by legally sanctioned duplicities.
On page 117-118 the Court issues a pronouncement that, essentially, concedes the right to deceive to all same sex couples in California while, at the same time, insisting that all citizens of the state of California who have direct dealings with the state government perpetrate deception on others:
“As discussed above, (page 81) because of the long and celebrated history of the term ‘marriage’ and the widespread understanding that this word describes a family relationship (my italics) unreservedly sanctioned by the community, the statutory provisions that continue to limit access to this designation exclusively to opposite-sex couples — while providing only a novel, alternative institution for same-sex couples — likely will be viewed as an official statement that the family relationship of same-sex couples is not of comparable stature or equal dignity to the family relationship of opposite-sex couples.”
First of all, the word marriage does not refer to the commonly understood words “family relationship.” The new terminology introduced by the George court names marriage a “family relationship.” In the same way that a cursory reading of this ruling and an assumption of judiciary accuracy with language might mislead a reader, the use of the term “marriage” for same sex couples has the potential for misleading many citizens of the state and the nation. The problem is that, if nothing else, same sex civil unions are very novel, and indeed they are an alternate relationship relative to that of traditional marriage. Novel and alternative are not pejoratives, nor should anyone expect them to be.
By the courts own admission, by its stated design, the venerable history of marriage will be conferred, naturally, on same sex couples. However, that is deceptive precisely because same sex unions have no history at all. The application of the commonly understood word to marriage to same sex couples is, therefore misleading and deceptive. Even if there is a tradition of prejudice towards gay couples, prejudice in every other area of American life is not overcome by way of deception. Prejudice is overcome by being who we are, and by proving, with the equal opportunities we are granted, that hurtful prejudgments are no more than the products of ignorance.
Marriage has a long and celebrated history and has been widely sanctioned in every community in history (even if not always faithfully adhered to!) because of what it is. The use of the word “marriage” in California is now new, controversial, and alternate from every other known use of the word for 6,000 years of recorded history. Let us as Californians be clear about this: marriage in California now, under the ruling of the George court, no longer means “marriage.” If you think it does, you are deceived. If after reading this series of articles you are deceived, then you are deceiving yourself. However, when state employees, whether they be doctors, nurses, lawyers, teachers, policemen, or firemen say “marriage,” the common understanding of marriage will come to the mind of the hearers. Government employees everywhere may be directed to say “marriage” with the intended new meaning concocted by this court; however, those that hear what they say will not necessarily understand what is meant. Indeed, who really can understand this definition of marriage as a “family relationship” given meaning through a concoction of legal rights pulled from a seascape of irrelevant references?
The entire progress of this Court’s legislation, and it is certainly that, and its explanations are immersed in deception. It is by this means that it seeks to persuade us of its equanimity in making us its partners in its deceptions. Whether these deceptions are accidental or intended, we will all be employed in them. This court's ruling, whether by incompetence or by malice, evinces a design to reduce us under an absolute despotism of the state. It demands that we ourselves become the instruments of deception. The state can stand in no greater tyranny to its subjects than that it demand them to dissemble in order to comply with its dictates.
On page 8 of this opinion, Judge George wrote,
“We need not decide in this case whether the name ‘marriage’ is invariably a core element of the state constitutional right to marry so that the state would violate a couple’s constitutional right even if — perhaps in order to emphasize and clarify that this civil institution is distinct from the religious institution of marriage — the state were to assign a name other than marriage as the official designation of the formal family relationship for all couples.”
This is incorrect. If the opinion of this court is that marriage is no longer marriage and that one new institution is fitting for all, then let the Court proudly proclaim this! Instead, this court lets stand a document that rids California of marriage entirely without even the slightest acknowledgment of its radicalism. The Court seems to embrace deception for a remedy to the plaintiffs claims of privacy and its ruling encourages the deception of the entire state by insisting that government officials use a new, and impossibly complex and incoherent legal definition in communicating with children and minors about marriage.
Oh... no adults would be lying to children… Oh, no… And fear not California, your little children will not be deceived. No, even they know what marriage is. Instead, they will assume that policemen, firemen, teachers, doctors and nurses are cowardly liars or deluded morons. Good work Chief Justice George, and let us give thanks to all those members of the court that concurred.
Whether by design or by incompetence, the Court’s opinion uses circular reasoning throughout. The opinion supposes that marriage is not between a man and a woman so that it may find an offended class and conclude that marriage, indeed, must not be only between a man and a woman. Finally, not satisfied with an opinion that is so inadequate that it deceives only the public, the Court produces several passages in which it seems to have conferred the right to deceive the public on the plaintiffs. Deceiving people is what the Court has, directly or indirectly, sanctioned by its discussion of “privacy rights” on page 105 below:
“Plaintiffs point out that one consequence of the coexistence of two parallel types of familial relationship (marriage and domestic partnerships) is that — in the numerous everyday social, employment, and governmental settings in which an individual is asked whether he or she “is married or single” — an individual who is a domestic partner and who accurately responds to the question by disclosing that status will (as a realistic matter) be disclosing his or her homosexual orientation, even if he or she would rather not do so under the circumstances and even if that information is totally irrelevant in the setting in question.”
The opinion of the majority in “re Marriages” explains that disclosing one’s sexual orientation is protected under a right to privacy, but the Court’s resolution of the issue should not be to sanction intentional deception as a remedy. Under this court’s ruling same sex couples may mislead an employer, whether it is a government office or a private enterprise, by leading individuals to believe that their status is heterosexual. That is, they may rest assured that when they say they are married , their employer or insurance company will understand the ordinary sense of the word and assume they are heterosexual. Doesn’t the state have an interest in deploring all acts of deception, especially as it relates to its own offices? Instead, this court has sanctioned the deceptions and provided the means of deception. Is deception, then, simply a matter of course and necessity to the California Supreme Court? Shall we consider this evidence of the intention of the court itself to deceive the public with its ruling and its opinion? Doesn't it seem that the court recognizes that the high end of “equality” justifies deception? Should we assume that the Court itself with its high view of equality and equity felt that, for itself too, deception as practically necessary is a dogma worthy of application? If we should so decide, fellow Californians, what then should we do? You know very well what you must do. You must recall these judges.
Nor is the foregoing deception seemingly advocated by the Court without potentially serious implications for insurance, credit, and medical institutions. Although the court recognized that some of these requests for information are not relevant, the discretion on when to deceive seems to be entirely in the hands of a member of a same sex partnership.
Some may argue that the destruction of the word marriage and its meaning would result in “marriage” would no longer implying heterosexuality. Hence, there would be no deception. However, until the process of reconstructing documents in which one’s sexual orientation is necessary information and, instance by instance, allowing courts to decide upon this necessity, many instances of deception on important matters will have been perpetrated and seemingly sanctioned by this Court.
Nor is such deception a necessary instrument for achieving equality in the United States of America. No one can seriously imagine women seeking equal opportunity being able to get away with bubbling in "man" on their employment applications. No, in order to equalize the playing field women proudly declared their gender and insisted on access. Likewise, African Americans proudly declared their identities as they demanded the equal rights they were entitled to under the law.
Perhaps religions have had the "option" of “going public” with their beliefs through the years. Notice how well that has gone? The religions such as Islam that state their creeds by their apparel and their deeds have a far greater opportunity for recognition and accommodation under U.S. Laws than do the more timid believers who obey court and statute despite the outcry of their consciences. Secrecy is no ally of civil rights. Not only does the Court appear to confer the right to deceive on a special segment of the population, it undermines the very equality is seeks to establish. The gay community ought to rise up and vote “yes” on California’s proposition 8, not only so they are not embarrassed by being part of a ruling that must go down in infamy, but so that their own movement for equal rights and recognition is not undermined by legally sanctioned duplicities.
On page 117-118 the Court issues a pronouncement that, essentially, concedes the right to deceive to all same sex couples in California while, at the same time, insisting that all citizens of the state of California who have direct dealings with the state government perpetrate deception on others:
“As discussed above, (page 81) because of the long and celebrated history of the term ‘marriage’ and the widespread understanding that this word describes a family relationship (my italics) unreservedly sanctioned by the community, the statutory provisions that continue to limit access to this designation exclusively to opposite-sex couples — while providing only a novel, alternative institution for same-sex couples — likely will be viewed as an official statement that the family relationship of same-sex couples is not of comparable stature or equal dignity to the family relationship of opposite-sex couples.”
First of all, the word marriage does not refer to the commonly understood words “family relationship.” The new terminology introduced by the George court names marriage a “family relationship.” In the same way that a cursory reading of this ruling and an assumption of judiciary accuracy with language might mislead a reader, the use of the term “marriage” for same sex couples has the potential for misleading many citizens of the state and the nation. The problem is that, if nothing else, same sex civil unions are very novel, and indeed they are an alternate relationship relative to that of traditional marriage. Novel and alternative are not pejoratives, nor should anyone expect them to be.
By the courts own admission, by its stated design, the venerable history of marriage will be conferred, naturally, on same sex couples. However, that is deceptive precisely because same sex unions have no history at all. The application of the commonly understood word to marriage to same sex couples is, therefore misleading and deceptive. Even if there is a tradition of prejudice towards gay couples, prejudice in every other area of American life is not overcome by way of deception. Prejudice is overcome by being who we are, and by proving, with the equal opportunities we are granted, that hurtful prejudgments are no more than the products of ignorance.
Marriage has a long and celebrated history and has been widely sanctioned in every community in history (even if not always faithfully adhered to!) because of what it is. The use of the word “marriage” in California is now new, controversial, and alternate from every other known use of the word for 6,000 years of recorded history. Let us as Californians be clear about this: marriage in California now, under the ruling of the George court, no longer means “marriage.” If you think it does, you are deceived. If after reading this series of articles you are deceived, then you are deceiving yourself. However, when state employees, whether they be doctors, nurses, lawyers, teachers, policemen, or firemen say “marriage,” the common understanding of marriage will come to the mind of the hearers. Government employees everywhere may be directed to say “marriage” with the intended new meaning concocted by this court; however, those that hear what they say will not necessarily understand what is meant. Indeed, who really can understand this definition of marriage as a “family relationship” given meaning through a concoction of legal rights pulled from a seascape of irrelevant references?
The entire progress of this Court’s legislation, and it is certainly that, and its explanations are immersed in deception. It is by this means that it seeks to persuade us of its equanimity in making us its partners in its deceptions. Whether these deceptions are accidental or intended, we will all be employed in them. This court's ruling, whether by incompetence or by malice, evinces a design to reduce us under an absolute despotism of the state. It demands that we ourselves become the instruments of deception. The state can stand in no greater tyranny to its subjects than that it demand them to dissemble in order to comply with its dictates.
On page 8 of this opinion, Judge George wrote,
“We need not decide in this case whether the name ‘marriage’ is invariably a core element of the state constitutional right to marry so that the state would violate a couple’s constitutional right even if — perhaps in order to emphasize and clarify that this civil institution is distinct from the religious institution of marriage — the state were to assign a name other than marriage as the official designation of the formal family relationship for all couples.”
This is incorrect. If the opinion of this court is that marriage is no longer marriage and that one new institution is fitting for all, then let the Court proudly proclaim this! Instead, this court lets stand a document that rids California of marriage entirely without even the slightest acknowledgment of its radicalism. The Court seems to embrace deception for a remedy to the plaintiffs claims of privacy and its ruling encourages the deception of the entire state by insisting that government officials use a new, and impossibly complex and incoherent legal definition in communicating with children and minors about marriage.
Oh... no adults would be lying to children… Oh, no… And fear not California, your little children will not be deceived. No, even they know what marriage is. Instead, they will assume that policemen, firemen, teachers, doctors and nurses are cowardly liars or deluded morons. Good work Chief Justice George, and let us give thanks to all those members of the court that concurred.
Friday, July 25, 2008
Supreme Deception: the Evidence, Part II
A marriage is not a family and to call it one is a lie. A family always involves children. For the Supreme Court to continue to call a same sex relationship a “family unit” is extraordinarily deceptive because no family can ever occur as a result of a same sex relationship. This deceptive legal jargon has entered California jurisprudence during the period of time in which Judge George has been the Supreme Court’s Chief Justice. In 2005 the majority opinion in Kobke vs. Bernardo Club Country Club, uses the terms “family unit” and “domestic partnership” synonymously. What is new in the court’s jargon in “re Marriages” (May 2008) is the Chief Justice’s wider use of “family relationship” to mean “marriage” or “domestic partnership” (pages 65-66). All of this is in keeping with the Court’s open refusal to recognize marriage in the state of California. Marriage is not a “family relationship,” whatever that is supposed to mean. Marriage is not a “family unit” and never has been. Further, in the corrupt jargon of the state of California it is even more assuredly not a “family unit” or, in other words, a domestic partnership.
Californians are deceived if they think that marriage currently exists in their law as that law has now been defined by Chief Justice George and the Supreme Court of California. The definition of marriage has not been expanded to include domestic partnerships. Instead, the definition of marriage has been contracted and dehumanized. To the Supreme Court of California marriage is a mere patchwork of rights conferred on two people by the legislature and the courts. Marriage results in husbands and wives, not “Party A’s” and “Party B’s.” To cite Perez vs. The State of California, “Marriage is thus something more than a civil contract subject to regulation by the state; it is a fundamental right of free men” (p. 714). Likewise also in Williams v. Garcetti, the Supreme Court at that time stated: “… we have already recognized that ‘[t]he concept of personal liberties and fundamental human rights entitled to protection against overbroad intrusion or regulation by government [such as defining marriage as merely the rights conferred by government] ... extends to . . . such basic civil liberties and rights not listed in the Constitution [as] the right to marry, establish a home and bring up children… (page 577, brackets and italics added).”
None of this, however, fully describes the patterns deception perpetrated on the public by the Supreme Court of California in “re Marriages.” The majority opinion authored by Judge George is deceptive when it refers to other cases of precedent on the importance of “family relationships.” The Chief Justice refers to cases of precedent written before 2003 as evidence that supports the importance of “family relationships” as defined by the court in 2005 and 2008. For instance, on page 54, Judge George notes that
“…subsequent California decisions discussing the nature of marriage and the right to marry have recognized repeatedly the linkage between marriage, establishing a home, and raising children in identifying civil marriage as the means available to an individual to establish, with a loved one of his or her choice, an officially recognized family relationship” (Italics added).
Domestic partnerships are not what the case he cites, DeBurgh v. DeBurgh (1952), was about at all. Continuing on Judge George stated,
“…for example, in explaining ‘the public interest in the institution of marriage’ (id. at p. 863), this court (in Deburgh…) stated: “The family is the basic unit of our society, the center of the personal affections that ennoble and enrich human life. It channels biological drives that might otherwise become socially destructive; it ensures the care and education of children in a stable environment; it establishes continuity from one generation to another; it nurtures and develops the individual initiative that distinguishes a free people. Since the family is the core of our society, the law seeks to foster and preserve marriage.” (Id. at pp. 863-864.)
In his citation of DeBurgh v. DeBurgh Chief Justice George makes it sound as though this court referred to marriage as a family relationship. It never did. In 1952 marriage was marriage and a family was a family. Additionally, in order to utilize this quote about domestic partnerships, the judge must assume first that marriage is not between a man and a woman. However, George blurs this very important distinction rather than obviate it. He does this by using the jargon concocted under his rule as Chief Justice.
Similarly, throughout the section in which he notes past decisions about marriage in order to catalog the importance and rights of marriage (53-66), he assumes that each right or benefit of marriage from old precedents can be assigned to any legalized relationship between two people. On page 66 the judge concluded,
“It is true, of course, that as an historical matter in this state marriage always has been limited to a union between a man and a woman. Hence, the foregoing thirteen pages of supposed evidence are entirely irrelevant. Tradition alone, however, generally has not been viewed as a sufficient justification for perpetuating, without examination, the restriction or denial of a fundamental constitutional right.”
The italicized words are my addition. These words should have been added by Judge George, all the more because he concludes that this was all the traffic of mere tradition. Moreover, his conclusion that all of the rights attributed to marriage were based on no more than tradition is itself misleading. The references were observations justices made in specific instances; they were not observations about historic tradition. Finally, although no evidence was presented that same sex couples gain any of the benefits mentioned by the authorities referred to, nor that the state has any interest at all in same sex unions, the court behaves as though it has listed thirteen pages of evidence proving both the interest of the state and the benefit to individuals of same sex unions. This is misleading and deceptive. The Court should plainly admit that it is rewriting the definition of marriage in a way it sees fit and cease attempting to persuade Californians that this has anything whatsoever to do with previous case law.
The court would lead us to believe that the references to families as the building blocks of society are directly related to the civil institutions designated by governments. The court would have us believe that a same sex couple is a building block of society, just as these famed jurists of the past declared was the case with married couples and their children. This equation is at least, open to discussion.
While we can conceive of marriages and children leading to societies and governments, we cannot see same sex unions leading to the existence of nations states. Indeed, the existence of children in a same sex union is, like a school, inconceivable without the good graces of the society at large. This is a matter for legislation, not for courts. The people of California are under no genuine constitutional compulsion to submit children who are wards of the state for adoption to same sex couples. In California the people have legislated that such adoption is acceptable. Considering the incompetence of state agencies in every aspect of public and private life, perhaps the wisdom of the people of California is to be applauded.
In Part III of “Supreme Deception: the Right to Deceive” the court’s explanation of privacy rights and same sex marriage will be probed.
Californians are deceived if they think that marriage currently exists in their law as that law has now been defined by Chief Justice George and the Supreme Court of California. The definition of marriage has not been expanded to include domestic partnerships. Instead, the definition of marriage has been contracted and dehumanized. To the Supreme Court of California marriage is a mere patchwork of rights conferred on two people by the legislature and the courts. Marriage results in husbands and wives, not “Party A’s” and “Party B’s.” To cite Perez vs. The State of California, “Marriage is thus something more than a civil contract subject to regulation by the state; it is a fundamental right of free men” (p. 714). Likewise also in Williams v. Garcetti, the Supreme Court at that time stated: “… we have already recognized that ‘[t]he concept of personal liberties and fundamental human rights entitled to protection against overbroad intrusion or regulation by government [such as defining marriage as merely the rights conferred by government] ... extends to . . . such basic civil liberties and rights not listed in the Constitution [as] the right to marry, establish a home and bring up children… (page 577, brackets and italics added).”
None of this, however, fully describes the patterns deception perpetrated on the public by the Supreme Court of California in “re Marriages.” The majority opinion authored by Judge George is deceptive when it refers to other cases of precedent on the importance of “family relationships.” The Chief Justice refers to cases of precedent written before 2003 as evidence that supports the importance of “family relationships” as defined by the court in 2005 and 2008. For instance, on page 54, Judge George notes that
“…subsequent California decisions discussing the nature of marriage and the right to marry have recognized repeatedly the linkage between marriage, establishing a home, and raising children in identifying civil marriage as the means available to an individual to establish, with a loved one of his or her choice, an officially recognized family relationship” (Italics added).
Domestic partnerships are not what the case he cites, DeBurgh v. DeBurgh (1952), was about at all. Continuing on Judge George stated,
“…for example, in explaining ‘the public interest in the institution of marriage’ (id. at p. 863), this court (in Deburgh…) stated: “The family is the basic unit of our society, the center of the personal affections that ennoble and enrich human life. It channels biological drives that might otherwise become socially destructive; it ensures the care and education of children in a stable environment; it establishes continuity from one generation to another; it nurtures and develops the individual initiative that distinguishes a free people. Since the family is the core of our society, the law seeks to foster and preserve marriage.” (Id. at pp. 863-864.)
In his citation of DeBurgh v. DeBurgh Chief Justice George makes it sound as though this court referred to marriage as a family relationship. It never did. In 1952 marriage was marriage and a family was a family. Additionally, in order to utilize this quote about domestic partnerships, the judge must assume first that marriage is not between a man and a woman. However, George blurs this very important distinction rather than obviate it. He does this by using the jargon concocted under his rule as Chief Justice.
Similarly, throughout the section in which he notes past decisions about marriage in order to catalog the importance and rights of marriage (53-66), he assumes that each right or benefit of marriage from old precedents can be assigned to any legalized relationship between two people. On page 66 the judge concluded,
“It is true, of course, that as an historical matter in this state marriage always has been limited to a union between a man and a woman. Hence, the foregoing thirteen pages of supposed evidence are entirely irrelevant. Tradition alone, however, generally has not been viewed as a sufficient justification for perpetuating, without examination, the restriction or denial of a fundamental constitutional right.”
The italicized words are my addition. These words should have been added by Judge George, all the more because he concludes that this was all the traffic of mere tradition. Moreover, his conclusion that all of the rights attributed to marriage were based on no more than tradition is itself misleading. The references were observations justices made in specific instances; they were not observations about historic tradition. Finally, although no evidence was presented that same sex couples gain any of the benefits mentioned by the authorities referred to, nor that the state has any interest at all in same sex unions, the court behaves as though it has listed thirteen pages of evidence proving both the interest of the state and the benefit to individuals of same sex unions. This is misleading and deceptive. The Court should plainly admit that it is rewriting the definition of marriage in a way it sees fit and cease attempting to persuade Californians that this has anything whatsoever to do with previous case law.
The court would lead us to believe that the references to families as the building blocks of society are directly related to the civil institutions designated by governments. The court would have us believe that a same sex couple is a building block of society, just as these famed jurists of the past declared was the case with married couples and their children. This equation is at least, open to discussion.
While we can conceive of marriages and children leading to societies and governments, we cannot see same sex unions leading to the existence of nations states. Indeed, the existence of children in a same sex union is, like a school, inconceivable without the good graces of the society at large. This is a matter for legislation, not for courts. The people of California are under no genuine constitutional compulsion to submit children who are wards of the state for adoption to same sex couples. In California the people have legislated that such adoption is acceptable. Considering the incompetence of state agencies in every aspect of public and private life, perhaps the wisdom of the people of California is to be applauded.
In Part III of “Supreme Deception: the Right to Deceive” the court’s explanation of privacy rights and same sex marriage will be probed.
Thursday, July 24, 2008
Supreme Deception: “re Marriages” Twists the Meaning of Family, Part I
A marriage is 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.
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 this relationship no family can ever, by nature, grow. Although this is deceptive, and although in all matters one tends to distrust this Court, if King George and the Supremes were to plead innocent to the charge of intentionally deceiving the public, they might be found “not guilty.” Too often it is the case that good and useful words become the jargon of legal decisions, so it is here.
All through 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.
However, by 2003 that 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.
By 2005 the change of language from confused wording to deceptive jargon was completely effected:
As we (Judge George in his office of 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…”).
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. Whether or not members of this court participated in making this deceptive change in the jargon for the express purpose of deception in “re Marriages” is an open question. The prior use of the unclear language of legislative intent in the 2003 to express the Court’s opinion in 2005 can be argued as an authentic representation of the liberal intent of the California Legislature.
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.
This, however, does not conclude the list deceptions perpetrated on the public by the Supreme Court of California. In “re Marriages” the patterns of deception and their repercussions are discussed in “Supreme Deception: re Marriages Twists Family, Part II.”
“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.
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 this relationship no family can ever, by nature, grow. Although this is deceptive, and although in all matters one tends to distrust this Court, if King George and the Supremes were to plead innocent to the charge of intentionally deceiving the public, they might be found “not guilty.” Too often it is the case that good and useful words become the jargon of legal decisions, so it is here.
All through 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.
However, by 2003 that 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.
By 2005 the change of language from confused wording to deceptive jargon was completely effected:
As we (Judge George in his office of 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…”).
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. Whether or not members of this court participated in making this deceptive change in the jargon for the express purpose of deception in “re Marriages” is an open question. The prior use of the unclear language of legislative intent in the 2003 to express the Court’s opinion in 2005 can be argued as an authentic representation of the liberal intent of the California Legislature.
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.
This, however, does not conclude the list deceptions perpetrated on the public by the Supreme Court of California. In “re Marriages” the patterns of deception and their repercussions are discussed in “Supreme Deception: re Marriages Twists Family, Part II.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
