Topic: Gay Rights
California's Excessive Liberty Still Shines As Marriage Endures Marriage continues in California as gay rights court submits to California constitutional law. Thousands of gay activists pledge to follow California law by seeking to amend its constitution constitutionally. It's morning in America!by Paul Benedict
(libertarian)
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
It's morning in America! There is still marriage in California! Yes, if the courts in their infinite wisdom had decided that incantations of the word equal in dire accents and with monotonous repetition multisyllabic Latin derivatives of the sanctum,unum and pluribus would have given them the authority overrule the populace of California and rend their constitution into the same threads into which it had mangled their language, there would be no more marriage in California law. For all those who would freely make a commitment based on the biological sexual unity of the male with the female there would have been no recognition in law. What a marriage would have been, no one, no even our Supreme Jurists could foretell, but, whatever it was, it would have been "fair." Likewise, all those who had ever been married in California would have, by revisionist jurisprudence, been declared to never have been married. Why? For marriage, the covenant between two people based on and consummated by a biological sexual union would have been ruled to never have existed in California law nor in common law. Instead, the "right to marry" would have been constructed to mean something that no human could grasp. Instead of a "right to marry" we would have had a "right to celebrate" the incomprehensible.
Whatever union the court contemplated in its ponderings of the vast nebula loosed under the dominion of intergalactic chaos came "that close" to being written into the law as a "marriage." This imponderable darkness would have become the legal definition of marriage and all that had everm been considered a marriage would have ever been have disannulled. Were not such forces, forces of ignorance? Were they not forces that would deny Americans their rights to marry as well as their heritage? Are not the forces of ignorance the same as the forces of evil? Would we not have known these dark forces by the chaos that would have been wrought in our laws, in our duties, and in our very liberties?
Say what you want: the warships of the Iran and the missiles of vile dictators may be poised to launch the next world war, but it is still morning in America. The dark forces of ignorance and chaos have receded and on its forest bunker the outline of a great grizzly can just be seen standing high against the grey skyline.
Those who feel denied by their homosexuality the right to be the same as those who are heterosexual did not have their circular arguments confronted. Instead, they were told that such circularity was simply different than a linear argument about race, religion and gender. None of the underlying propositions were addressed at all. That is, the claim of marriage as a homosexual "right" in California presupposes that homosexuality is a "race," a "gender," or somehow like both. What homosexuality is was not addressed by the courts. Log Cabin Republicans, and the rest of the Gay Community should recognize that such activist courts are not California's friends. This court no more addressed the key issues in constitutional rights than they did when they overturned Proposition 22. Their activism is lawless. This court's activism has had a lawless quality becuase of its activism. A previous Dehumanizing Marriage article tried to explain just this (see: Why Log Cabin Republicans Should Support Prop. 8). Under no circumstance should any Californian want to trust or to empower the courts! Any political institution of this world, having amassed and amalgamated unfettered, unchecked power, becomes loathsome and detestable. No Californian should ever again be bribed by outcome promised by an activist court into conferring non-jurisdictional power ever again.
Those who seek remedy through the initiative process are now following by far the best course. You are Californians again. Welcome back.
However, part of the essence of the George opinion begs some additional comments. If there is any truth to our having an excessive liberty in California, let us begin to really "abuse" it. While some heavenly words such as equality, justice, freedom, and liberty may forever stay in the hands of a court, for men rarely can agree on their apprehension of these vision words; nonetheless, cannot we reclaim our "earthly" words? Dare we not plainly define, as we have with marriage, earthly words such as "crime," "property," "spending growth", "spending limit," "spending cut," and "contract?" A consensus on the plain meaning of such words is more than possible.
Oh, we should then amend the California Constitution yet again. It should be amended in such a way that if the courts ever again lay hold on our earthly words, that such an act will be considered, by constitutional law, high treason.
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 0 thumbs so far
The views expressed in this
article are those of Paul Benedict only and do not represent
the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. Paul Benedict is
solely responsible for the contents of this article and is not an
employee or otherwise affiliated with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
Posted By: Walt Thiessen
Date: 2009-05-26 16:25:36
Liberty is an absolute concept, not a relative concept. There is no such thing as "excessive liberty," any more than there is a "more perfect" union. Either something is perfect, or it is not. Nothing can be "more perfect" than something else that is already perfect.
Similarly, you either have liberty or you do not, and liberty either applies to everyone, or it does not.
In the same vein, "partial" liberty is not liberty. It's merely a distortion of language.
I think that everyone is being sold on the idea that government should have a say in marriage in the first place, as it is historically an institution of the Church. But even that's not the real debate, because if you present the delimma at its face-value—that is, that by getting a marriage license, you are essentially going to the state and asking for its permission to be married to someone equally consenting—I think most people can find something detestable about that notion alone, gay or straight.
There is no such thing as "excessive liberty," any more than there is a "more perfect" union. Either something is perfect, or it is not. Nothing can be "more perfect" than something else that is already perfect.
Walt is correct. However, it must be noted that the phrase "more perfect union" is found in the Preamble of the United States Constitution! OOPS!
Quibbles. Of course there is the concept of 'more perfect.' When we say 'more perfect,' we mean ever increasing on a continuum of 'getting better.' The term is not meant as though there is a 'perfect' which can be 'more perfect.' The sense of the phrase is a gaining on the ideal which is ever in advance of our efforts. Of course the State has a stake in the institution of marriage; the State being the assembly of all the people has due interest in protecting marriage between a man and a woman. There is no doubt, no doubt at all, that granting same sex marriage will lead, willy-nilly, to polyamorism, polygamy and any combination thinkable. The State in its intent to avoid cohabitation with the Church (any particular religion) does not therefore surrender to some sort of amorality, where everything goes as long as one is not, in the obfuscating cliché, hurting anyone else. Separation of Church and State was an imperative in 1791 inorder to form a 'more perfect' union and modulate the religious strife of the past two centuries. It was never meant to be some absolute mutual isolation, but was a necessary compromise due to the splintering and squabbling of the various sects. In short, it was a stop-gap measure, an experiment in governance, a tight rope act and one which has its flaws, perhaps fatal flaws, for over time such a separation leads to a new religion, a secular religion and so becomes the hateful conumdrum the Founders sought to avoid.
Another quibble: There is such an idea called 'excessive liberty,' since for human beings as we know them, liberty is, like perfection, not absolute. Liberty is always limited by the just rights of others. Merriam-Webster: 1: the quality or state of being free: a: the power to do as one pleases b: freedom from physical restraint c: freedom from arbitrary or despotic control d: the positive enjoyment of various social, political, or economic rights and privileges e: the power of choice
Except for c, a through e are all subject to limitations because of the rights of others. hence there is an idea of 'excessive liberty,' wherein one practices 'a, b, d, and e' without regard for the liberty of others.
Posted By: Jahfre Fire Eater
Date: 2009-05-29 06:32:26
Hi Paul,
I was drawn to your article by the titular oxymoron, "excessive liberty". I was disappointed that it was just another defense of the government's penchant to license, control and charge citizens for choosing to bond with each other in love.
I enjoyed the irony that you want evolution of language to be treated as treason while your commenter, Raymond, argues that self-contradictory phrases like "more perfect," and "excessive liberty" can be rationalized to mean whatever he says.
Posted By: Paul Benedict
Date: 2009-05-29 15:04:15
I know Walt knows the origin of the phrase a "more perfect union," and Dale, I'm glad we both agree that bringing our thinking to the intentions of the authors of those documents is the best way to perfect our sometimes less than perfect union-- it is a cup full cup empty type thing... Oh, Ephesians 4 is the probable source of the notion, and it is a deep notion... a heavenly notion.
The word quibbles are really not quibbles, but they are all I think about words I refer to as "heavenly" words. That is they are vision words and involve realities that are so much larger than the individual that a Californian and a denizen of Japan might look on the same ocean at the same time and see the sea from two entirely different angles.
These are words that are made for individual rulings by individual justices... It is better than quibbling.
On the other hand "marriage" is an earthly word well understood forever. The justices of California "seized" this word and, by the tryannic forces of big government, have sought to enforce a new meaning that excludes entirely the old. This is not an "evolution."
Marriage is NOT an idea that comes from churches. Marriage is known in every culture and religion. The social strictures against polygamy are, perhaps, from Western religion. But "gamy" monogamy-polygamy... The word marriage is understood plainly.
Jahfre cannot seriously consider it a more liberty rich position to have government order men and women to "not dare completely name" their own relationships so that homosexuals are not confroted by the paucity of their own sexuality.
"Equality" in mathematics is earthly but in terms of the affairs of men... Something else. "Rghteousness" and even "rights" are also massive in scope. Some say such notions are so large that, like the sky, they are composed of airy nothings... These may well ultimately be for courts.
But we have lost the word "crime" and we have lost the word "property." Liberty is not lawlessness any more than self-discipline, slavery.
Want to comment on this
article? Leave your comment here. Your email address is
required to track your comment. However, we will neither
publish your email address nor distribute it to other
organizations or persons. The only reason we might use
it would be if we needed to contact you regarding your
comment. All comments are subject to our
terms of use policy.
