Tomorrow, March 4, 2008, the California Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in a case combining the lawsuits “by nearly two dozen [same-sex] couples . . . and . . . by the city of San Francisco” demanding that the state recognize their unions as marriage.
While advocates of gay marriage are giddy about the coming hearing, those pushing for state recognition of same-sex marriage through the courts are incredibly short-sighted, especially in a state which in 2000, voted overwhelmingly for a proposition preventing the state from recognizing same-sex marriages performed outside the Golden State. Clearly, California voters expressed opposition to same-sex marriage.
If, as gay marriage advocates contend, people’s views have changed on the subject, then they should put another referendum on the state ballot overturning Prop. 22 and changing the definition of marriage. But, at the event I attended in January launching a new initiative to promote “marriage equality” in the Golden State, activists were determined to keep a referendum banning gay marriage off the ballot, preventing the Californians from having a say in the matter.
Not just that. Those who push recognition of same-sex marriage ignore history. Gay activists may blame Karl Rove for placing a raft of referenda on state ballots in 2004 defining marriage there by its traditional definition, the union of one man and one woman. But, they’re more to blame than he for the success of their referenda.
Only after the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court handed down Goodridge v. Department of Public Health on November 18, 2003, requiring the Bay State to recognize same-sex marriage, did social conservatives to put those referenda on the ballot in several states.
Had the Massachusetts court not mandated gay marriage, these social conservatives would never have been able to rally people in other states to support such referenda.