October 8, 2008
I hestitate to say, “Now I’ve heard it all,” because the equality-haters never fail to amaze me with their convoluted justifications for turning gay and lesbian Americans into permanent untouchables, nor with the blatant lies they use to do it, nor with their deliberate ignorance, which is so breathtakingly astounding one can only wonder if these people were all homeschooled* by Paul Cameron.
This next example of sheer idiocy does not come from the official anti-marriage campaign — but I wouldn’t be at all surprised if this doozy ends up in their next attack ad.
On a blog promoting the elimination of our legal rights in California is a long essay by one “John A. Evans,” who asks if support for Proposition is “intolerant.” It begins, surprisingly enough, with this admission:
Probably the most relevant definition of “intolerant” is “an unwillingness to grant equal freedom” to others. Certainly married heterosexuals are granted a host of legal rights and obligations that would be denied to others if those in same sex relationships cannot be “married.” There is also a degree of legitimacy and respect, associated in our culture with the institution of marriage, that might be denied to same sex couples if they are denied “marriage.” Denying rights and legitimacy to some, while granting it to others, certainly appears “intolerant.”
Nothing wrong there — but the writer’s apparent sanity is an illusion; he quickly dissolves into a comparison of “tolerating” homosexuals and “tolerating” smokers. (That probably caught Frank Schubert’s attention.)
And here, dear reader, is where the writer makes his “point”: that it is right to be intolerant of things that kill, and smoking and homosexuality both kill.
Oh, but Evans doesn’t stop there — he posits that homosexuality also causes sterility
As you read, try to keep your eyes from rolling right out of their sockets:
… Now we have become so intolerant of smoking that smoking is illegal in public buildings and those who sponsored smoking—the tobacco companies—have been required to pay billions of dollars in damages to those they lured into the habit. Why is such pronounced intolerance for smoking so acceptable?
The obvious answer is that smoking kills people—not immediately, and not everyone, but irrefutably. Health costs for everyone are increased by smokers. Even non-smokers are harmed by being in the presence of smokers. The first question in every medical check-up is “Do you smoke?” Some smokers excuse their smoking with the confession that it is a habit—a physical compulsion—that they are helpless to resist. It is part of their inherent nature, they claim, that cannot be denied. The fact that others have ceased smoking is irrelevant to those who remain smokers—they do not accept that it is possible for them to stop smoking. …
So the problem with smokers is their behavior, when they claim they were born smokers. Gee, what a clever way to equate an acquired addiction with an inherent trait.
Not.
Fail.
I’ll tell you what’s often inborn: stupid. But without access to the writer’s psych workup, it’s impossible to know whether he was born stupid, or chooses to be stupid.
Is this societal intolerance of smoking, now crystallized into law, intolerance of smokers? Generally speaking it is not. Most do not condemn smokers for smoking.
Oh, really now? Tell me more.
Most recognize they have challenges in their own lives that are as great for them as is smoking for smokers. Smokers are not denied the right to vote, or to eat where they want, or even to employment in almost any job because they smoke. …
Exsqueeze me? “Pointing to rising health costs and the oversized proportion of insurance claims attributed to smokers, some employers in California and around the country are refusing to hire applicants who smoke and, sometimes, firing employees who refuse to quit.”
But never mind all that — here’s the money quote:
How is this relevant to Proposition 8? Smoking may kill people eventually—usually decades after they become addicted and long after they have reached the age of reproduction. Smokers have had many children—many people alive in the world today are children of smokers. In contrast, homosexuality has an instant medical resul [sic] —it causes sterility. Which is more damaging to society—cancer and heart failure caused by smoking or sterility caused by homosexuality?
Paul Cameron, that is you, isn’t it?
And, gee, where have I heard something like that before? Not from Paul Cameron, I mean, but… Oh, yeah, I remember — it’s right out of the ol’ Reasons to Pull Out of Your Ass for Banning Interracial Marriage Handbook:
“It is stated as a well authenticated fact that if the [children] of a black man and white woman, and a white man and a black woman intermarry, they cannot possibly have any progeny, and such a fact sufficiently justifies those laws which forbid the intermarriage of blacks and whites.”
— Supreme Court of Missouri, 1869
If a population of animals, let us say frogs, were faced with two diseases—one that caused cancer late in the life cycle of the frog and one that caused immediate sterility—which one would be the focus of major research grants searching for a cure? The frogs will suffer from the cancer, but they will become extinct from sterility.
OK, Einstein, first explain how homosexuality causes sterility, and tell us where you got this whopper.
Second, explain why animals — all of them — aren’t extinct. “No species has been found in which homosexual behaviour has not been shown to exist, with the exception of species that never have sex at all, such as sea urchins and aphis.”
Tell me why the bonobo (or dwarf chimpanzee), especially, still exists, when the entire species is bisexual, and 95% of the population is just as happy to establish a primary relationship with a MOTSS as with a MOTOS.
Tell me how the Amazon dolphin ever managed to survive, when its males are such big, gay perverts, they’ll happily penetrate each other through the blowhole, making the Amazon “the only example of nasal sex we have in nature.”
Oh, I know the old “reasoning”:
You: “Homosexuality is unnatural!”
Me: “Homosexuality is perfectly natural throughout the animal kingdom.”
You: (sputtering) “People are not animals!”
Finally, if this “homosexuality = sterility” idiocy were true, tell us why you might want to “cure” sterility in a group of people you’d rather see extinct in the first place.
Here’s a little tip, Skip: If you want to “cure” (i.e., eradicate) homosexuality, you can’t do it through these bullshit “ex-gay” programs you’re thinking of. They don’t work. If you want to “cure” homosexuality, you’ll have to kill all the heterosexuals, ’cause, Baby John, heterosexuality causes homosexuality.
With all the Radical Right’s yammering on about how only a penis and a vagina make a family, they just can’t handle the truth — the undeniable, unimpeachable truth — that 100% of all homosexuals are the result of heterosexual breeding.
Suck on that, Johnny.
Does the government have a legitimate role in opposing, or at least not encouraging, sterility? Admittedly many in America today support the nihilistic doctrine that humans are an ecological disaster and that the fewer humans there are, the better off the earth would be. That is the official policy of the Chinese government. But should that be the policy of our government? …
Is there an equivalent to Godwin’s Law for trying to equate the Demon Homosexual with the Yellow Menace? If not, there should be.
Or should our government support policies conducive to child bearing by Americans? Certainly that is the original basis for the legal privileges granted to “married” couples. It was intended to create a legally protected environment most conducive to the physical and emotional security of children where they would be most likely to receive the constant and sensitive nurture that is so essential to infants and children.
Never mind the reams of evidence that queerspawn grow up just as nice and normal as (and often more caring and compassionate than) the children of heterosexuals — the Radical Wrongys never listen to that in the first place.
Instead, Mister Wizard, tell me where your “best for the children” spiel leaves couples like my wife and me, who aren’t going to have children (and, yes, we could if we wanted to).
Every time the gay-bashers scramble for justification, it always comes down to “what’s best for the children.” And they always conveniently ignore childless-by-choice couples like Buffy and me — and like every heterosexual couple who choose not to have children.
Ya think marriage, or the lack of it, is going to change our minds? Or the minds of Mr. and Mrs. Childless-By-Choice next door?
“Golly, honey! I know we said we didn’t want kids, and nothing changed in the 15 years we lived together without benefit of marriage, but now that we are married, I suddenly have this overwhelming urge to whelp out more little brooders than the Duggars! Gosh, I never realized how conducive to childbearing man-woman marriage really is!”
Proposition 8, in effect, is a refutation of the California court’s approval for, and condoning of, a particular life style.
Don’t you love the way they get it exactly backwards? Proposition 8 is not a “refutation of the California court’s approval for, and condoning of, a particular lifestyle”; it is the “approval for, and condoning of, a particular—” chosen “—lifestyle” above all others: the Christian lifestyle.
Homosexuality is not a lifestyle, nor is it a choice. Religion, however, is very much a lifestyle, and very much a choice.
Of course, these same homophobes also insist that since gay people aren’t born gay, we have to “recruit” new members all the time to keep our membership up — when in reality that’s what religions, not gay people, do.
‘Phobes do have a bit of a problem with projection, don’t they?
Anyway…
Proposition 8 does not take away the right of anyone to live with anyone they please nor does it limit their ability to have whatever type of sexual relationships they choose. It does not restrict anyone’s right to a job…
John A. Evans, you are a liar.
“While states as diverse as Iowa and California already protect LGBT Americans from employment discrimination, 31 states still do not,” which means that “in most of the nation, it is still perfectly legal for an employer or landlord to say ‘lesbians need not apply,’ or for the manager of a movie theater to say, ‘We don’t sell tickets to gays like you.’”
…or to receive any particular level of benefits from that job, such as health care.
Again, Evans, you are a liar. Try selling this bunk to people like Robert Ryan and Ralph Martinelli or Nickie Brazier and Heather Aurand, to name just two couples who have discovered the hard way that inferior, second-class civil unions and domestic partnerships do not afford the same benefits — especially healthcare — as marriage:
“The New Jersey Civil Union Review Commission … concluded that civil unions create a little-understood, separate category of citizens that is often more vulnerable to federal discrimination. …
“First, many employers are not recognizing civil union partners for spousal health benefits because they are governed by a federal law, not the state one that requires them to.
“The federal Employment Retirement Income Security Act, or ERISA, uses words like ’spouses,’ ‘husbands and wives,’ and ‘married couples’ in its benefits guidelines for self-insured employers.
“While such companies may also cover civil union partners, the law — coupled with the federal DOMA — gives them a loophole to avoid it without obviously discriminating.
“Companies in New Jersey and Vermont are doing this, while in Massachusetts, with marriage equality, employers don’t question their obligation to the couples. …”
To boot, since the federal government refuses to recognize same-sex marriages, or domestic partnerships, or civil unions, couples legally joined in their own states are learning that when one spouse can add the other to his/her employer’s health insurance plan, the value of the dependent spouse’s coverage is taxed as income by the IRS:
“As a growing number of employers offer domestic partner benefits, gays and lesbians are discovering a hitch — domestic partner benefits, unlike health benefits provided to married heterosexual couples, are taxed as income. As a result, gay and lesbian employees take home relatively less income than their married heterosexual co-workers who perform exactly the same job.
“For example, a gay or lesbian employee earning $40,000 a year and receiving domestic partner health insurance benefits toward which the employer contributes $250 a month would owe income and payroll taxes on a total of $43,000 in income at the end of the year.
“A married heterosexual employee earning the same salary and receiving the same health benefits for his or her spouse would owe income and payroll taxes on only $40,000.”
“As a result, married workers who get family health insurance benefits get a double benefit — they get health insurance coverage for their spouses and children and are not taxed on the value of that coverage.
“In sharp contrast, workers who have an unmarried domestic partner are doubly burdened: Their employers typically do not provide coverage for domestic partners; and even when partners are covered, the partner’s coverage is taxed as income to the employee.
“Employers who cover domestic partners are also penalized under current law, since employer payroll tax responsibilities increase along with employees’ income and Social Security taxes.
“As a result, the taxation of domestic partner health care benefits sets up a two-tiered tax policy that costs many American families and their employers millions of dollars each year. This report estimates the financial impact of this extra tax on employees and employers.”
Now, Johnny, you tell me: How are we treated “equally” again? And what entitles you and yours to such special rights?
Proposition 8 does not deny anyone life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Gosh, why does that sound so famil—? Oh, yeah! I remember now — that’s from the Handbook of Justifying Racism, Or: We Don’t Hate Colored People, But We Don’t Want Them Using Our Water Fountains or Touching Our Lily-White Daughters:
“[Negroes’] rights, social, civil, political and religious, will be jealously guarded; but they must not marry or be given in marriage with the sons and daughters of our people.”
— Lonas v. Tennessee, 1871
“All this is not to say that any race, creed, or caste should be denied any inalienable rights. But it is to say that Deity in his infinite wisdom, to carry out his inscrutable purposes, has a caste system of his own, a system of segregation of races and peoples.”
— Bruce R. McConkie
Mormon Doctrine: A Compendium of the Gospel, 1958
“Now we are generous with the Negro. We are willing that the Negro have the highest education. I would be willing to let every Negro drive a Cadillac if they could afford it. I would be willing that they have all the advantages they can get out of life in the world. But let them enjoy these things among themselves.”
— Elder Mark E. Peterson
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
August 27, 1954
But tolerance for individuals who choose same sex relationships does not require tolerance (or worse, encouragement)…
Gosh, that sounds awfully familiar too!
“We must not … feel so sorry for Negroes that we will open our arms and embrace them…”
— Elder Mark E. Peterson
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
August 27, 1954
It is legitimate—intolerant or not—to fund school programs warning of the evils of smoking and encouraging students not to begin smoking. It is also legitimate to encourage child bearing and rearing and to create a privileged legal environment—called “marriage”—for those who undertake that most essential responsibility. Granting the same legal protections to sterile relationships is bad policy.
“Sterile relationships.” The only thing “sterile” is this guy’s synapses.
Well, at least he agrees that he has access to a “privileged legal environment” denied us. Disgustingly, his whole point is that it’s perfectly acceptable to discriminate against people he doesn’t think are as good as he is.
To ask the obvious, who is going to pay the taxes necessary to fund the social security benefits of same sex couples?
To ask the obvious, who is paying the taxes necessary to send your children to public school — and to private religious schools, thanks to “faith-based funding”? Last time I checked, I didn’t get a tax break just because I don’t have kids — I’m paying for your rugrats’ education, Johnny B. Dumb, and don’t you forget it.
And I’m paying for your mother’s Social Security check every month — when, frankly, I’d rather use the money to buy a time machine so I could duct-tape her knees together in time to stop her from giving birth to such a hateful, lying idiot for a son.
Everyone knows the answer—the children of heterosexuals, because only heterosexuals have children.
That’s going to come as quite a surprise to Mary Cheney, and Melissa Etheridge, and Clay Aiken, and…
John-Boy, you are without a doubt the most delusional case I’ve encountered this week. And that’s saying a lot.
If citizens choose not to have enough children, or are discouraged by culture, economic pressures, etc. from having then, then the economic vacuum of unfilled jobs will be filled by immigrants.
OMG, look at this! He’s rolling all his phobias into one! Now gays are to blame for the so-called “illegal immigrant” problem!
Nature hates a vacuum of population as much as it hates any other type of vacuum.
The only vacuum is the one between your ears, Johnny.
Same sex marriage is sterile.
Then why am I still getting my period at 47 years old?
Sterility has worse than cancer.
John A. Evans has worse stupid than Forrest Gump.
It is legitimate not to condone behavior that has such dire consequences for individuals, families, society and the entire human race.
Like denying civil rights to a class of people for no other reason than that you hate them and fear them?
It is acceptable and legitimate for individuals and government to refuse to grant the same rights and status to sterility in our culture that is granted to heterosexual relationships that can and do produce children.
You know what’s scary, folks? For every John A. Evans who spews such garbage, there are countless more who swallow it like it was ice cream.
What’s worse is that you can never tell whether asses like John A. Evans really believe their own lies, or are just clever con artists who know how to manipulate the truly stupid among us.
* Actually, I’m not kidding about the homeschooling thing. “Paula,” the blogger responsible to blame for propagating Evans’ lunacy, is indeed a homeschooler. What’s more, she follows the Charlotte Mason method, which eschews “dry, factual textbooks” in favor of “living books,” which are “usually written by one person who has a passion for the subject and writes in conversational or narrative style.”
In other words, who needs pesky facts when you can get yore larnin’ from a single “authority” who, gosh darnit, prolly talks all real folksy an’ everything, like that Sarah Palin gal?
Gee, I’ve got a “passion” for both psychology and genetics, and I always write in a conversational style — I guess that makes me qualified to write a “living book” on curing religious insanity through fetal brain surgery.
Posted by: Sapphocrat
Filed under:
"Ex-Gays",
California,
Family Research Council,
Hate Speech,
Heterosexuality,
Homophobia,
Marriage Equality,
Parenting,
Proposition 8,
Race/Ethnic Issues,
Radical Religious Right,
Random Bigotry,
Random Stupidity
October 1, 2008
Unbelievable interview in the Washington Blade:
‘I hope gay and lesbian Americans will give full consideration to supporting me’
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Oh, sorry, couldn’t help that. Let’s do go on.
Republican presidential nominee Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) told the Blade in an exclusive written interview this week that he appreciates the Log Cabin Republicans’ decision to endorse him, and he hopes “gay and lesbian Americans will give full consideration to supporting me.” …
BWAHAHAH—! Damn. Sorry.
McCain reiterated his long-held position that he would leave it up to military leaders to decide whether the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” law should be retained or repealed. …
Yeah, and he said he’d leave marriage to the states, too — until he realized he needed to suck James Dobson’s Bible bookmark a lot harder to win over the evangelamentals.
Washington Blade: What personal experiences or friendships in your life have shaped how you view gay issues?
I can answer that! Your North Vietnamese captors were “pretty damned sadistic” homosexuals who seemed to get a “big bang” out of torturing you.
John McCain: I have known former Congressman Jim Kolbe for 25 years.
That punk?! Mr. Forced-Out-of-the-Closet, who won’t even co-sponsor the UAFA because he’s got the connections to keep his Panamanian lover in the U.S. as long as he wants? That Jim Kolbe?
Don’t make me laugh — Jim Kolbe isn’t gay — he’s just a homosexual. And he’d still be a Larry Craig-style homosexual if he hadn’t been outed by Kurt Wolfe.
… When he came out in 1996…
Was forced out.
…there was no question that I would stand by him. He’s a friend and a patriot and has been an admirable public servant, and a good example of why someone’s sexuality should not be relevant in public life.
Yeah, you wouldn’t want your screwing around on your first wife or the Vicki Iseman story to be made “relevant in public life,” would you, Johnny?
I have also known former Tempe Mayor [Neil] Giuliano for many years.
A Log Cabinette. A Jew for Hitler.
He headed Mayors for McCain in our 2000 campaign. …
Like I said, a Jew for Hitler.
Blade: Do you have any role models who are openly gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender?
McCain: I had the humbling experience of speaking at Mark Bingham’s funeral after the attacks on Sept. 11. Mark had supported me during the 2000 campaign.
That’s sad to hear.
Unfortunately, I barely knew him, but our country learned about him after 9-11. He was one of the heroes on 9-11 who tried to retake control of United Flight 93. His efforts along with the other brave patriots could have saved hundreds of lives. I honor and respect Mark. …
What, a queer has to die saving his country before you can “honor and respect” him? You sure don’t “honor and respect” those of us still alive and living with your party’s vile attacks on us every day of the week.
Blade: Would you decline to nominate a qualified Supreme Court justice, cabinet member or other appointed position just because the person is openly gay?
McCain: I have always hired the most qualified and competent people — regardless of their political party, race, gender, religion or sexual orientation.
Blade: Would you decline to nominate a qualified Supreme Court justice or cabinet member who had a history of anti-gay rulings?
McCain: I will nominate judges who interpret the Constitution, not judges who legislate from the bench. Legislators pass laws; judges interpret them. Unfortunately, too many judges have become confused [about] their role. …
Just the answer I expected: a non-answer.
Translation: “I’m gonna pack SCOTUS with all the Scalias and Thomases I can dig up, and there’s not a damned thing you can do about it, so kiss your ‘rights’ goodbye, pansies.”
Then he pats himself on the back for supporting PEPFAR, and then he avoids the question of whether he’d have a LGBT liaison in the White House:
I have already publicly stated that there will be no White House Office of Political Affairs in my administration — professional politics should be at the party committees, where it has a rightful place, not in the White House. I intend to be a President for all Americans. …
Except gay ones.
He also won’t give a straight answer on ENDA or DADT (you expected him to?).
Blade: Would a McCain administration be willing to meet with and work with gay leaders to discuss matters of interest to the gay community?
McCain: I have met with leaders of Log Cabin Republicans in my campaigns. I am always willing to listen to all viewpoints and that will continue if I become President.
Dog whistle: “I’m only willing to meet with fag— er, Uncle Tom— er, Republican homos. The rest of you can bite me.”
Next, he says he appreciates the endorsement of the Log Cabinettes, and then delivers the punch line:
I hope gay and lesbian Americans will give full consideration to supporting me. The stakes are high in this election. I will have an inclusive administration and I will be a president for all Americans.
My Aunt Fanny you will.
Next, he goes back to paying lip service to “states’ rights” and marriage equality, driving his homophobia home for the benefit of the religious extremists:
However, at the same time, my own view is that marriage should be reserved for a man and a woman. That’s what I supported in Arizona. I realize this is a controversial issue and we must conduct this debate in a way that respects the dignity of every person.
There’s no “debate” on equal rights — you’re either for equality, or you’re against it. It’s clear where you stand, McCain.
And you wouldn’t recognize the “dignity of every person” if it bit you in the ass. (Tell me, have you stopped using the word “gooks”? And do you still stand by “I will hate them as long as I live”?)
He then points out that he voted against the FMA, because “this should be a state matter, and not one for the federal government — as long as no state is forced to adopt some other state’s standard.”
Next, the Blade corners him on his opposition to LGBT adoption:
Blade: Regarding adoption by same-sex couples, you have been quoted as saying you don’t believe it’s appropriate. Can you elaborate?
McCain: I hope my comments are not misinterpreted. I respect the hundreds of thousands of gay and lesbian people who are doing their best to raise the children they have adopted. As someone who adopted a child, Cindy and I know better than most couples the amazing satisfaction that comes from providing love to an unwanted child. I believe a child is best raised by a mother and father because of the unique contributions that they make together to the development of a child. …
Taking your talking points from Maggie Gallagher then, are you?
As I did in my home state of Arizona, I support the effort in California to define marriage as the union of a man and a woman. However, the people of California will ultimately decide this issue, and I’ll of course respect the decision of the voters.
Homophobic little jerk.
Lots more of the same, and then:
Blade: Del Martin died on Aug. 27. She and Phyllis Lyon, her partner of 55 years, got married in the first legal gay union in California in June —affording Phyllis many of the basic protections and rights granted to married couples, such as hospital visitation and estate planning issues. Do you envision a time when all GLBT citizens will have similar basic rights? During your administration?
McCain: I respect that Del and Phyllis spent a lifetime together. As I stated earlier, however, I believe that issues regarding marriage and family laws are best decided by the states and not the federal government.
Never mind that Del and Phyllis were far more successful at marriage than you could ever hope to be, McCain. Jealous much?
Next, he tries (and fails) to justify voting against the Matthew Shepard Act, and finally dodges a Boy Scouts question.
Now, all you homos and ‘phobes voting for McCain, raise your hands — I want to know who you are so I can avoid getting the stink of you on me.
Posted by: Sapphocrat
Filed under:
Arizona,
California,
Civil Rights,
Election 2008,
Employment/ENDA,
Focus on the Family/James Dobson,
Gay Republicans,
HIV/AIDS,
Hate Crimes,
Homophobia,
Immigration,
John McCain,
Marriage Equality,
Military/DADT,
Parenting,
Proposition 8,
Radical Religious Right,
Republican Sexcapades,
Republicans
August 30, 2008
Feel free to distribute this post in its entirety, anywhere and everywhere, as long as you include a link back to The Lavender Newswire.
Chino Blanco suggested Googling “Six Consequences If Proposition 8 Fails” — “the six totally false talking points that the ‘Yes on 8′ campaign is trying to use to fire up their target voters.”
I found it, and, after I stopped laughing, grabbed it off a Wrong-Wing blog, and decided to answer each “consequence” here.
Six Consequences Big Lies
If the Freedom-Haters Are Spreading
About Proposition 8 Fails
1. Children in public schools will be taught that both traditional marriage and same-sex marriage are okay.
The California Education Code already requires that health education classes instruct children about marriage. (§51890)
Therefore, if the definition of marriage is changed, children will be taught that marriage is a relation between any two adults. There will be serious clashes between the secular school system and the right of parents to teach their children their own values and beliefs.
This is a lie. The California Education Code will not be changed by the defeat (or passage) of Proposition 8.
The entire text of Proposition 8 (PDF) reads as follows:
ELIMINATES RIGHT OF SAME-SEX COUPLES TO MARRY.
INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.
Changes California Constitution to eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry. Provides that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California. Fiscal Impact: Over next few years, potential revenue loss, mainly sales taxes, totaling in the several tens of millions of dollars, to state and local governments. In the long run, likely little fiscal impact on state and local governments.
The anti-gay forces are counting on voters not to read the California Education Code for themselves — so we’ll be happy to read it for them.
The section of the California Education Code (§51890) cited defines a long list of terms as used in Chapter 5.5. Comprehensive Health Education, a.k.a. the Comprehensive Health Education Act of 1977.
Citing the need for “an adequate health education program in the public schools,” this chapter focuses on education about, and prevention of, “the abuse of alcohol, narcotics, and tobacco; emotional instability; forced marriage; self-medication; dental caries; nutritional disorders; suicide; and accidents,” as well as “fostering in students an understanding of their role in protecting the environment, and in safeguarding themselves from other health and safety dangers which may be posed by hazardous substances.”
There is only one reference to marriage in §51890, and it is this:
(1) Pupils will receive instruction to aid them in making decisions in matters of personal, family, and community health, to include the following subjects: …
(D) Family health and child development, including the legal and financial aspects and responsibilities of marriage and parenthood.
In addition, a section of the Code the pro-8 forces conveniently neglect to cite, §51914, specifically prohibits arbitrary changes to the comprehensive health education program without extensive input and review:
51914. No plan shall be approved by the State Board of Education unless it determines that the plan was developed with the active cooperation of parents, community, and teachers, in all stages of planning, approval, and implementation of the plan.
And: §51890 itself mandates “community participation” — defined in §51891 as “the active participation in the planning, implementation, and evaluation of comprehensive health education by parents, professional practicing health care and public safety personnel, and public and private health care and service agencies” in “all educational programs offered in kindergarten and grades 1 to 12, inclusive, in the public school system”:
(3) The community actively participates in the teaching of health including classroom participation by practicing professional health and safety personnel in the community.
Yet all of the above is moot, because the California Education Code already requires schoolchildren be taught respect for all committed relationships.
You read that right. It’s in yet another chapter and section the anti-gay forces fail to cite, §51933, Chapter 5.6. California Comprehensive Sexual Health and HIV/AIDS Prevention Education Act, Article 2. Authorized Comprehensive Sexual Health Education:
51933. (a) School districts may provide comprehensive sexual health education, consisting of age-appropriate instruction, in any kindergarten to grade 12, inclusive, using instructors trained in the appropriate courses. …
Not “must,” mind you, but “may.” Note also the word “elects” in the first sentence quoted immediately below; whether or not to “offer comprehensive sexual health education” is left entirely to the discretion of the school district:
(b) A school district that elects to offer comprehensive sexual health education pursuant to subdivision (a), whether taught by school district personnel or outside consultants, shall satisfy all of the following criteria:
(1) Instruction and materials shall be age appropriate.
(2) All factual information presented shall be medically accurate and objective.
(3) Instruction shall be made available on an equal basis to a pupil who is an English learner, consistent with the existing curriculum and alternative options for an English learner pupil as otherwise provided in this code.
(4) Instruction and materials shall be appropriate for use with pupils of all races, genders, sexual orientations, ethnic and cultural backgrounds, and pupils with disabilities.
(5) Instruction and materials shall be accessible to pupils with disabilities, including, but not limited to, the provision of a modified curriculum, materials and instruction in alternative formats, and auxiliary aids.
(6) Instruction and materials shall encourage a pupil to communicate with his or her parents or guardians about human sexuality.
(7) Instruction and materials shall teach respect for marriage and committed relationships.
Thus, the California Education Code will not be changed by the defeat of Proposition 8. The Code already includes the very thing the anti-gay forces are trying to make you think looms on the horizon.
On a related note, the anti-gay forces really hope you won’t read Chapter 5.6 in full, because it annihilates the argument that comprehensive sex education (including accurate information about contraceptives) cannot exist in harmony with “abstinence-only” teaching:
(8) Commencing in grade 7, instruction and materials shall teach that abstinence from sexual intercourse is the only certain way to prevent unintended pregnancy, teach that abstinence from sexual activity is the only certain way to prevent sexually transmitted diseases, and provide information about the value of abstinence while also providing medically accurate information on other methods of preventing pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases. …
Dropping down past points 9 through 12(a)-(c) (which deal with accurate information about pregnancy prevention, sexually transmitted diseases, what to do with an unwanted baby, and the age-appropriateness of materials used for grades earlier than 7), we come to 12(d):
(d) If a school district elects to offer comprehensive sexual health education pursuant to subdivision (a), whether taught by school district personnel or outside consultants, the school district shall comply with the following:
(1) Instruction and materials may not teach or promote religious doctrine.
(2) Instruction and materials may not reflect or promote bias against any person on the basis of any category protected by Section 220.
Note the “if” and “elects” again.
(Also note the prohibition of religionist materials — another reason the anti-gay forces don’t want you to read this chapter.)
Section 220 cited above reads:
220. No person shall be subjected to discrimination on the basis of disability, gender, nationality, race or ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, or any other characteristic that is contained in the definition of hate crimes set forth in Section 422.55 of the Penal Code in any program or activity conducted by an educational institution that receives, or benefits from, state financial assistance or enrolls pupils who receive state student financial aid.
In other words, you can’t promote bias against anyone in public schools — including, but not limited to, gay people… and religious people.
The radical religionists really hate the fact that we’re legally protected from hatred here in California, just like they are.
They also hate the fact that California prohibits forced religious instruction on public school students — while claiming that California is forcing pro-gay “instruction” on those same students, which it doesn’t.
Also of interest is §221 (same link as the last one above), which destroys the oft-repeated lie that religious institutions will be forced to teach that “gay is OK”:
221. This article shall not apply to an educational institution that is controlled by a religious organization if the application would not be consistent with the religious tenets of that organization.
2. Churches will be sued if they refuse to allow same-sex marriage ceremonies in their religious buildings that are open to the public. Ask whether your pastor, priest, minister, bishop, or rabbi is ready to perform such marriages in your chapels and sanctuaries.
This is a two-fold lie. There are two issues here: 1) allowing same-sex marriages to be performed in church-owned facilities, and 2) religious officiants performing same-sex marriages.
They want you to think your “pastor, priest, minister, bishop, or rabbi” is going to be forced to perform marriages that are in direct conflict with your church’s beliefs.
Issue 1: Same-sex marriages in church-owned facilities.
Let’s get the obvious out of the way first: It’s highly unlikely that a same-sex couple would want to get married in a facility owned by an organization hostile to equal rights — just as, say, a Muslim couple would want to be married in a place where the pastor preaches that Islam is evil. Which is probably why we’ve never heard of a Muslim couple suing a Christian church for denying access to a church hall (or a Christian couple suing a synagogue, or a Jewish couple suing a mosque, etc., etc., etc.).
Now, to the point: If the facilities are “open to the public,” then yes, the owner could be sued for refusing to allow access to same-sex couples — or anyone else for that matter.
A Press-Enterprise article from late July (linked below) sums it up:
David Cruz, a professor of law at USC, an expert on sexual-orientation law and president of the International Lesbian and Gay Law Association, said religious institutions might be required to allow their meeting rooms or halls to be used for same-sex weddings if the religious groups already rent their facilities to the public. There has never been a court ruling on the matter, so the law is unclear, he said.
If a court does rule there is a requirement, it would be based upon long-standing state law that prohibits public-accommodations discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, not on the Supreme Court’s marriage ruling, he said. A religious group that does not rent out its facilities to the public would not be affected, because the facilities would not be considered “public accommodations,” he said.
The solution: Don’t rent your church hall to the public.
The real bottom line: Whether your church gets sued for its discriminatory practices or not has absolutely nothing to do with Proposition 8.
Issue 2: Religious officiants performing same-sex marriages.
To require any church to perform any civil marriage is unconstitutional — that is, it violates the United States Constitution.
No church can be forced to perform any marriage. The Catholic church will not, and cannot be forced to, perform a marriage for a non-Catholic couple, nor for a divorced Catholic (a Catholic whose previous marriage was annulled by the church, yes, but not a civilly divorced Catholic). The same goes for every other church — and applies to secular officiants as well (i.e., an atheist officiant cannot be forced to perform a religious ceremony).
Here’s one of many examples of such empty fearmongering, and the facts that render it an utter lie:
Group warns Inland pastors about same-sex weddings
A Sacramento-based conservative legal group arrives in Corona this week to warn local pastors that they might be sued for refusing to host same-sex weddings, and to advise them on how far they can go in supporting a ballot initiative that would ban same-sex marriage.
Constitutional-law experts say the state and federal constitutions’ guarantee of religious freedom clearly allows clergy to decline requests for same-sex matrimonies. Supporters of same-sex marriage accuse the group of misleading pastors to increase support for Prop. 8, the November ballot initiative that would bar same-sex marriage, and to raise money for the organization. …
[The Pacific Justice Institute] is using the specter of pastors being forced to perform same-sex weddings in its fundraising appeals.
“If you believe, as I do, that no government should be allowed to force churches to perform marriage ceremonies that contradict God’s Word, I’m asking you to say ‘I do’ by offering PJI a one-time, tax-deductible gift,” a June 25 letter says.
The letter says that same-sex couples have already threatened two pastors with lawsuits for refusing to marry them. [PJI president Brad Dacus] declined to identify the churches.
Well, that’s convenient. Why not identify them? Why not show us all proof of their “persecution”?
Shannon Price Minter, legal director of the San Francisco-based National Center for Lesbian Rights, the lead counsel in the case that led to the May 15 California Supreme Court decision legalizing same-sex marriage, said any lawsuit against pastors for refusing to perform same-sex weddings would be futile. He said he strongly supports the right of clergy to decline to perform same-gender weddings.
“They’re trying to scare people,” Minter said. “There’s not a shred of truth in their assertion. It is so clearly established in law that clergy and religious organizations have absolute discretion on which marriages to perform and what is within their religious faith. That is one of the most solidly established principles in law.”
Some religions have strong restrictions on divorce, second marriages and interfaith marriages, and — just as with same-sex marriages — government cannot interfere with those teachings, Minter said.
Jennifer Rothman, an associate professor of law at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles and an expert on constitutional law, said the state has always allowed clergy to choose whom to marry, and will continue to allow clergy to adhere to their religious teachings on the matter.
Of course, right-wing “scholars” — like John Eastman (see the full P-D article) — still warn that that it “it is unlikely that a court would force clergy to marry same-sex couples,” but it “isn’t impossible.” Nothing is “impossible” — but it would take a repeal of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
What’s more (and before the righties start whining about “activist judges”), that little thing about “free exercise” was clearly explained in Abington School District v. Schempp (1963), in which the U.S. Supreme Court declared school-sponsored Bible reading in public schools violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment — yet declared, in a broader context, that the Free Exercise Clause “withdraws from legislative power, state and federal, the exertion of any restraint on the free exercise of religion. Its purpose is to secure religious liberty in the individual by prohibiting any invasions there by civil authority.”
The only way to “force” any clergymember to do anything against the tenets of his or her church is by way of a consitutional amendment to strike the Free Exercise Clause from the First Amendment, or to repeal the First Amendment altogether.
That isn’t going to happen, and the righties know it.
The bottom line: Religionists don’t want the government running their churches (which the government can’t do anyway, and the religionists know it), yet think churches have the right to run the government.
Now, if you want a real slippery slope that will threaten religious freedom in the United States, then a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage (state or federal) is the way to go.
First, forcing the government to declare which marriages are legal and which are not based on the religious ideology of any one group restricts the religious freedom of every other religious group. That means if, say, Catholics could force the government to abide by Catholic doctrine, all non-Catholic marriages would be null and void. (Sure it’s a stretch, but according to the radical righties, nothing’s “impossible”… right?)
Second, if the righties want to argue that marriage is a “sacred” religious institution, they run the risk of invalidating their own authority to perform legally-recognized marriages.
In a discussion of a 2004 proposed (and failed) “compromise” amendment that would ban equal marriage in Massachusetts while providing for same-sex civil unions, Emory University law professor John Witte pointed out that “the debate could raise questions about whether it’s appropriate for the clergy to continue to act as agents of the state in solemnizing marriages (’Under the authority vested in me…’). They could be in a difficult posture to say they can do that but can’t act as agents of the state in performing civil unions.”
If the religionists are willing to give up their right to have their church marriages legally recognized by the state, then we can talk.
3. Religious adoption agencies will be challenged by government agencies to give up their long-held right to place children only in homes with both a mother and a father. Catholic Charities in Boston has already closed its doors because of the legalization of same-sex marriage in Massachusetts.
This is a multiple-pronged lie. Starting with the second sentence first:
Catholic Charities of Boston did not “close its doors” at all; it is still very much in existence. See for yourself. Its Web site boasts:
As one of the largest providers of social services in Massachusetts, Catholic Charities responds to the needs of the poor and working poor, provides supportive services to children and families, and assists refugees and immigrants as they become active participants in their communities. We offer approximately 140 programs and services in 40 locations across Eastern Massachusetts, which allows us to help nearly 200,000 people each year.
Catholic Charities of Boston chose to end its adoption work (and only its adoption work) in 2006 — and not “because of the legalization of same-sex marriage in Massachusetts,” but because it refused to “comply with state law requiring that gays be allowed to adopt children.”
That law — passed by the the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts in 1993 — had nothing to do with the legalization of same-sex marriage in Massachusetts. (Nor did the ruling in Adoption of Tammy, in which the court ruled that a lesbian couple could adopt a child, based on the fact that “[n]othing in the provisions of the adoption statute, G. L. c. 210, precludes the joint adoption of a child by two unmarried individuals.” Not “two gay individuals,” but “two unmarried individuals.”)
Gay couples didn’t “win” the right to adopt via marriage in 2004; they were recognized as equal to all other unmarried adoptive parents, in 1993 — a decade before same-sex marriage was legalized in Massachusetts.
What’s more: In reality, it was not pressure from the state but from the Vatican that triggered Catholic Charities’ decision to end its adoption work:
The controversy began in October when the [Boston] Globe reported that Catholic Charities had been quietly processing a small number of gay adoptions, despite Vatican statements condemning the practice. Over the last decades, the Globe reported, approximately 13 children had been placed by Catholic Charities in gay households, a fraction of the 720 children placed by the agency during that period.
Agency officials said they had been permitting gay adoptions to comply with the state’s antidiscrimination laws. But after the story was published, the state’s four bishops announced they would appoint a panel to examine whether the practice should continue. In December, the Catholic Charities board, which is dominated by lay people, voted unanimously to continue gay adoptions.
But, on Feb. 28, the four bishops announced a plan to seek an exemption from the antidiscrimination laws. Eight of the 42 board members quit in protest, saying the agency should welcome gays as adoptive parents.
That day, [Rev. J. Bryan Hehir, president of Catholic Charities of Boston] and [Archbishop Sean P. O’Malley] met with [then-Governor Mitt Romney] in his State House office to make their case for an exemption, but Romney said he lacked the authority to do so. Hehir and O’Malley left the State House feeling that nothing could be done soon for their cause. The bishops had considered launching a court challenge, but Hehir said he and O’Malley realized it would cost “too much time and energy” — without any certainty of victory.
“It became clear our options were narrow,” Hehir said.
Dale Carpenter puts the entire matter into perspective:
The most egregious abuse of [examples of the ‘collision’ of … ‘equal treatment for same-sex couples’ and ‘the freedom to exercise religious beliefs’] to undermine gay marriage is the Catholic Charities case, which involved the application of a 1989 antidiscrimination law. That dispute arose because the Catholic Church objected to complying with the law for the first time only after gay marriage was permitted in the state. It was a fortuitously timed conflict for gay-marriage opponents given that the state legislature was at that very moment considering a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage.
As for California, all unmarried prospective parents are subject to the Uniform Parentage Act — the scope of which is far too complex to detail here (as we always say, we’re not lawyers), but which is summarized nicely here and here.
You can read the entire California Family Code (particularly §7600-7606), or get up to speed with the HRC’s summary of California adoption law as it pertains to gay and lesbian parents:
Permits single GLBT individuals to petition to adopt? Yes.
California law states that an adult related to the child, a person named in a deceased parent’s will, a legal guardian, or a person with whom the child has been placed for adoption is permitted to petition to adopt. CAL. FAM. CODE § 8802.
California Family Code §8802
Permits a same-sex couple to jointly petition to adopt? Yes.
Permits a same-sex co-parent to petition to adopt partner’s child or child of the relationship? Yes.
In 2003, the state Supreme Court affirmed that a same-sex co-parent can petition to adopt his or her partner’s child or child of the relationship. (Sharon S. v. Superior Court, 73 P.3d 554 (Cal. 2003))
“[P]rior to adoption of the current domestic partnership law, the California Supreme Court had permitted a child to have two female parents, upholding the adoption by one woman of her female partner’s biological child in Sharon S. v. Superior Court.” [Joanna Grossman, “The California Supreme Court Considers Three Broken-Up Lesbian Partnerships, And Finds, In Each, That A Child Can Have Two Mothers,” FindLaw, September 6, 2005]
“Petitioner Sharon S. and her former domestic partner, Annette F., had a child by artificial insemination, and both women reared the child. Annette F. was the biological mother. When the couple parted ways, the Sharon S. petitioned for independent second-parent adoption, but the Annette F. petitioned to block the proceedings. Last month, the California Supreme Court issued its opinion in favor of the Sharon S. See 73 P.3d, 2 Cal.Rptr.3d 699. It held that (1) termination of a birth parent’s rights is not a prerequisite to adoption; and (2) second-parent adoptions are valid under California’s adoption laws.” [Lesbian & Gay Lawyers Association]
Registered domestic partners can use the state’s stepparent adoption laws to adopt each other’s children or children of the relationship. (CAL. FAM. CODE § 9000(b))
California Family Code §9000-9007
Details: The state regulations do not address whether sexual orientation is a considered factor in adoption decisions. CAL. CODE REGS. tit. 22, § 35181.
Bottom line: Gay couples (and singles) are already eligible to adopt in California. There’s nothing in Proposition 8 — pass or fail — that would change that, or increase the potential for lawsuits against adoption agencies (religious or secular) that violate state law by discriminating against prospective parents solely on the basis of sexual orientation.
4. Religions that sponsor private schools and which provide housing for married students will be required to provide housing for same-sex couples, even if it runs counter to church doctrine, or lose tax exemptions and benefits.
This is unsubstantiated and unprecedented projection. Since the benefits of California’s domestic partnership law were expanded in 2003 (and went into effect in 2005), unmarried couples (gay and straight) registered as domestic partners gained the right to family student housing on public campuses. The question is this: Since this new benefit went into effect, has any private religious school in California been “required to provide housing for same-sex couples, even if it runs counter to church doctrine” in the past three years?
In all the research I’ve done on this subject, I have yet to find a single case of a private religious school (in California or elsewhere) being “forced” to house a legally-married same-sex couple.
As for the possibility of a religious school (or any other religious institution) losing its tax-exempt status because of discriminatory practices, that would be wonderful (there’s a good reason Bob Jones University lost its tax-exempt status for denying admission to applicants who dated outside their race: BJU was wrong, no matter how “deeply held” BJU’s religious beliefs, and taxpayers should not be forced to subsidize discrimination) — but in reality, the chances of that happening are remote.
To the religionists I say: Go talk to your California tax attorney if you’re worried about losing your right to leech off the taxpayers in California — or, better yet, move to a state where anti-equality discrimination is not only legal, but encouraged. Virginia is rather pretty, and well-suited to religious bigots.
Finally, you won’t lose your federal exemption — the IRS doesn’t recognize same-sex marriages any more than you do, so it doesn’t care if you discriminate against us. (You’ll have to worry about that only after we’ve achieved full marriage equality on the federal level, or when Congress finally includes “sexual orientation” in federal antidiscrimination law.)
In any case — and this is really getting old, fast — the bottom line is that Proposition 8 will have no effect one way or the other on existing state law (which already prohibits discrimination based on both sexual orientation and marital status) or federal law (which offers no protections for LGBT Americans, and does not recognize same-sex marriages).
5. Ministers who preach against same-sex marriages will be sued for hate speech and could be fined by the government. It has already happened in Canada, one of six countries that have legalized gay marriage.
This is a lie, combined with irrelevant fearmongering. I could sue Pat Robertson for hate speech right this minute (anybody can sue anybody for anything, especially in California), but I wouldn’t win. His hate speech (and everyone else’s) is completely protected under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. There are yelling-fire-in-a-theatre exceptions (e.g., inciting violence), but Fred Phelps will still be free to scream “God hates fags” all he likes.
In fact, ministers will still be free to tell their congregations how to vote on ballot initiatives like Proposition 8, without worrying about losing their federal tax-exempt status. (The only kind of politicking preachers can’t do in an official capacity is promote specific candidates. That’s why bully-pulpiteer James Dobson spun off “Focus on the Family Action” from Focus on the Family; Dobson is quite open about its purpose: “Focus on the Family Action is a new cultural action organization that is completely separate from Focus on the Family, legally. It has been created by separating out of Focus on the Family those activities which constitute lobbying under the IRS code…”)
Next, what happens in Canada is irrelevant — so irrelevant that I’m not going to bother trying to figure out which case(s) are being cited (or if they ever existed). Canadian law has zero effect on U.S. law. And, as evidenced by the United States’ overwhelming refusal to catch up with its northern neighbor in the civil-rights department, the U.S. isn’t even influenced by Canada.
But, again — no matter how many times I have to repeat it — Proposition 8 has no impact on existing hate-crimes laws (there are no specific “hate speech laws”).
6. It will cost you money. A change in the definition of marriage will bring a cascade of lawsuits. Even if courts eventually find in favor of a defender of traditional marriage (highly improbable given today’s activist judges), think of the money – your money, your church contributions – that will have to be spent on legal fees.
This is a lie, combined with unsubstantiated and unprecedented projection.
We’ll gladly get to “the money” in a moment. But first: Nobody’s redefining marriage except the anti-gay forces.
The California Constitution was interpreted correctly — and anyone who claims it wasn’t is just plain wrong. I’ve quoted Glenn Greenwald’s plain, simple, and excellent explanation of the facts before, and it’s well worth quoting again:
California’s marriage ruling —
what it means and what it doesn’t mean
No rational person can criticize the Court’s decision here without having at least a basic understanding of the governing California precedents. Anyone who condemns this ruling without having that understanding will be demonstrating a profound ignorance of — and contempt for — how the law works.
As the Court made clear, whether someone believes that “marriage” should include same-sex couples is completely irrelevant. It is equally irrelevant whether one believes that the U.S. Constitution can be read to require same-sex marriages. There is one issue, and only one issue, that matters here: are the provisions of the California State Constitution, in light of how they have been interpreted by that state’s Supreme Court in prior decisions, violated by the exclusion of same-sex couples from the legal institution of “marriage”?
To be able to answer that question, one must have read and understood the key cases on which the Court relied, such as Perez v. Sharp (1948), Brown v. Merlo (1973) and numerous others. For reasons I’ve written about before, anyone who criticizes the Court’s decision without reference to California constitutional law is engaged in rank sophistry or, to use a more familiar term, pure “judicial activism” (i.e., judging a constitutional question based on one’s preferred outcome rather than the requirements of binding constitutional law). Put another way, those who criticize the Court here of “judicial activism” without bothering to familiarize themselves with relevant California constitutional law are themselves engaged in the purest, and lowest, form of “judicial activism.”
Second, this “activist judges” line as the anti-gay crusaders use it is utterly meaningless, and always has been. Circuit and federal-court judges are appointed by officials elected by the majority of voters to represent the people. They are representing the people.
Ditto state legislatures.
Greenwald:
Equally misinformed will be anyone arguing that this is some sort of an example of judges “overriding” the democratic will of the people. The people of California, through their representatives in the State legislature, twice approved a bill to provide for the inclusion of same-sex couples in their “marriage” laws, but both times, the bill was vetoed by California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who said when he vetoed it that he believed “it is up to the state Supreme Court” to decide the issue.
As Greg said recently (regarding a survey gauging the mood of California voters): “If you don’t trust your representative, then find someone else and vote them to represent (notice the similarity between the words) your interests!”
If you want an example of a real activist judge, let’s talk about Roy Moore.
Third: The California marriage ruling was not made by a bunch of “activist judges,” but by an overwhelmingly conservative court — which did its duty properly, without attempting to inject the personal ideology of any of its members into its majority opinion.
Frank D. Russo, in discussing Republican legislator Robert Villines’ astoundingly ignorant reaction to the ruling — “I am very disappointed that the California Supreme Court, by the narrowest of margins, would allow their own personal partisan views to get in the way of their duty to uphold the rule of law by thwarting the will of the overwhelming majority of Californians who voted in support of Proposition 22. … I hope that once this constitutional amendment becomes law in November, the Supreme Court will resume its appropriate role of interpreting the law, and stop legislating from the bench” — blows Villines (and the “activist judges” idiocy) out of the water:
Since 6 of the 7 Justices are Republicans, appointed by Republican governors — including 3 of the 4 in the majority, this is either ignorant or just demagoguery. What is the partisan agenda of the Republican Chief Justice [Ronald] George who wrote the court’s decision and who was appointed by Republican Pete Wilson? Or that of Kathryn Werdegar, another registered Republican, also appointed by Wilson? Or that Republican Justice Joyce Kennard, appointed by that Republican Governor George Deukmejian? Or are these remarks directed at the sole Democrat on the Court, Carlos Moreno who voted with his three Republican colleagues for the decision?
The Court was doing its job in our system of government. They were interpreting the California Constitution. They had no more choice to decide this case the opposite way — or to duck it (judicial restraint as Dan Weintraub characterized one of the dissenters in this morning’s Bee) than they could have or should have in deciding that California’s laws 60 years ago against interracial marriage were unconstitutional or throwing out the repeal of the Rumford Fair Housing Law that the voters approved in a ballot referendum in the 1960s.
The fact that Proposition 22, passed in 2000 by 61% to 39% is not controlling as to the Court’s proper decision on the constitutional questions the court had to decide this last week. It wasn’t when the California Supreme Court struck down Proposition 14 to make it legal to discriminate on the basis of race in deciding who to sell one’s house to — a very emotional and politically risky move for the court back then — for those who remember.
It’s a basic principle of law that when the state’s constitution conflicts with a statute — even one passed by the voters — that the constitution trumps the statute. Proposition 22 was a statute and the court would be shirking its duty if it followed an unconstitutional statute just for political reasons or expediency.
Maybe Villines and company are trying to make this into a partisan political issue — to throw red meat out to their base and whip up the vote in November. He probably spoke before reading the decision — as have most of those expressing an opinion — but at least he should get his facts right. And what he is pushing is not par
