Tags: The | Truth | the | Form

The Truth Is on the Form

Monday, 23 February 2004 12:00 AM

The fact that circuit and appellate court judges have refused to stop it, is also a disturbing and telling sign. It does not take an inifite amount of legal knowledge to see plainly that California in 2000 passed Proposition 22. It was a referendum by the voters of that state that legally declared that "marriage shall consist of one man and one woman."

It is the state version of the federal law, the Defense of Marriage Act. Both of these judges know the facts here. They have both ignored their duties as sitting judges and deserve impeachment and perhaps disbarment.

Governor Terminator has so far in this escapade been more like Governor Intimidated. Earlier last week the best he could muster was to issue a statement that simply "encouraged compliance" with the laws of California. It is the executive branch of the state government whose job it is to enforce and carry out the laws of California.

Should Californians be "encouraged" to not rape their women? Or murder their neighbors? Or should they be "encouraged" to not break into their neighbors' homes or steal their cars? Governor Schwarzenegger is falling down on the job because of his inability to think clearly, and it is making him look feeble and unable to govern.

On the national level, shock is being expressed from local pulpits to the White House. Even Mrs. Bush, while flying cross country to help promote abstinence in school-aged kids, expressed her "shock" at the willingness of public officials to overstep their boundaries.

"This is [a] very shocking, shocking issue," Mrs. Bush said to the Chicago Tribune. "[This] should be settled by the American people, not by judges in Massachusetts or a mayor in San Francisco."

The president also weighed in.

"I have watched carefully what's happening in San Francisco, where licenses were being issued, even though the law states otherwise," Bush said. "I have consistently stated that I'll support law to protect marriage between a man and a woman. Obviously, these events are influencing my decision."

According to the San Mateo County Times, Mayor Newsome responded to the president.

"California's constitution prohibits me from discriminating on basis of sexual orientation [read: choice of who I wish to act out with]. And I urge the president to see the human faces involved in the city's new marriage policy, and I invite him to meet the first couple to be wed with the city's blessing last Thursday."

"I ask the president to meet Phyllis Lyon and Del Martin and discuss with them why they simply want the same rights as a couple of 51 years that my wife and I enjoy today," Newsom said in a statement.

Since the official state officers who should be enforcing the California criminal codes are not, speculation continues to arise as to whether these marriages will stand the test of legal scrutiny. And to this point, at present, state officials are saying that none of the licenses being issued will be registered with the state of California. The reason why is because the state is under no binding agreement to recognize any license that has been altered.

"We do not validate or invalidate the marriage. It would simply not be recorded or registered with the state," California Health and Human Services Agency spokeswoman Nicole Kasabian Evans reiterated on Wednesday.

The licenses being issued from the San Francisco offices have replaced the words "bride" and "groom" with "applicant 1" and "applicant 2."

And it is in that stunning simplicity that the truth of this entire issue should be realized. A marriage consists of a bride and a groom. The sanction given such a relationship is not entirely civil nor is it entirely spiritual in nature.

Think about the pure difference of those terms. In how many ways is a "bride" different from an "applicant 1"? Do mothers brush their daughters' hair out at night dreaming with them about the possibility of someday throwing them a "huge civil ceremony" where said daughter can be a stunning "applicant 1" and so that she can fly away in the arms of her "applicant 2"?

The debate that must never be forgotten is that this is not an issue of equal rights. It is an issue of one group of people's desire to sanction their behavior and thus have the "sanction" and "blessing" of a state. It is about the shame of behavior that they know to be wrong - but that they desire all others to declare right.

Lawlessness has broken out in California. Lawlessness has been attempted in Massachusetts, Ohio and Illinois, and a number of other states have passed or introduced stricter language on what will be done in regard to same-sex marriage in each of these respective states.

However, even though I have been hesitant to call for the Constitution to be pulled into the controversy of codifying federal law on this, I believe the president is coming to the decision that there is no other option.

And you as a voter will play a significant role in this as well. John Kerry voted against the Defense of Marriage Act. John Kerry has been supportive of every movement to further gay issues in his home state of Massachusetts. President Bush will support and encourage traditional marriage; he stated such in his State of the Union address.

So the question becomes who do you choose to lead the fight on this issue.

Would you prefer President Bush or "applicant 2"?


© 2019 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

1Like our page
The fact that circuit and appellate court judges have refused to stop it, is also a disturbing and telling sign. It does not take an inifite amount of legal knowledge to see plainly that California in 2000 passed Proposition 22. It was a referendum by the voters of that...
Monday, 23 February 2004 12:00 AM
Newsmax Media, Inc.

Newsmax, Moneynews, Newsmax Health, and Independent. American. are registered trademarks of Newsmax Media, Inc. Newsmax TV, and Newsmax World are trademarks of Newsmax Media, Inc.

America's News Page
© Newsmax Media, Inc.
All Rights Reserved