Defining Marriage in California...

The Granola State just got fruitier, nuttier and flakier.

Last week I linked to a commentary by Dennis Prager on the recent California Supreme Court's 4-3 decision to allow same-sex "marriage" in the state (thus overturning the will of 61% of Californians who voted for Proposition 22 in 2000). His commentary summarizes, in part:

"[H]eterosexism," [will be considered] a bigoted preference for man-woman erotic love, and therefore to be extirpated from society.

Any advocacy of man-woman marriage alone will be regarded morally as hate speech, and shortly thereafter it will be deemed so in law.

Companies that advertise engagement rings will have to show a man putting a ring on a man's finger -- if they show only women fingers, they will be boycotted just as a company having racist ads would be now.

Films that only show man-woman married couples will be regarded as antisocial and as morally irresponsible as films that show people smoking have become.

Traditional Jews and Christians -- i.e. those who believe in a divine scripture -- will be marginalized. Already Catholic groups in Massachusetts have abandoned adoption work since they will only allow a child to be adopted by a married couple as the Bible defines it -- a man and a woman.

Anyone who advocates marriage between a man and a woman will be morally regarded the same as racist. And soon it will be a hate crime.

Indeed -- and this is the ultimate goal of many of the same-sex marriage activists -- the terms "male" and "female," "man" and "woman" will gradually lose their significance. They already are. On the intellectual and cultural left, "male" and "female" are deemed social constructs that have little meaning. That is why same-sex marriage advocates argue that children have no need for both a mother and a father -- the sexes are interchangeable. Whatever a father can do a second mother can do. Whatever a mother can do, a second father can do. Genitalia are the only real differences between the sexes, and even they can be switched at will.

Yesterday, Frank Pastore had a commentary of his own, which is also worth reading. Frank summaries, in part:

Same-sex marriage will inevitably lead to polygamy and perhaps “consensual” incest. The collective wisdom of Western civilization, and the Judeo-Christian value system beneath it, have always restricted marriage to two people, not closely related, one man and one woman, of legal age. For over 2,000 years, there have been laws against bigamy, polygamy, incest and minor marriage. No society in history has ever granted same-sex marriage while maintaining prolonged prohibition of polygamous and incestuous relationships...

If the 2,000 years of Western tradition was insufficient to maintain this court’s prohibition against same-sex marriage, how can this court appeal to that same tradition to prohibit incest and polygamy? If past generations have found incest, polygamy and same-sex marriage “inimical to mutually supportive and healthy family relationships” because of their “potentially detrimental effect on a sound family environment,” how can this court accept the traditional prohibitions against incest and polygamy, while rejecting the traditional prohibition against same sex marriage? If this court can overturn tradition and find a constitutional right to same-sex marriage, what will prevent future courts from similarly overturning tradition to find a constitutional right to incest and polygamy?

UPDATE: Per a recent California poll (after the court decision), 54%-35% (with 10% undecided) are for an Amendment to the State Constitution to define marriage as being between a man and a woman. This follows the Prop 22 numbers of 2000 which were 61%-39%.

As Frank says in his last sentence:

We must turn around while our course is still reversible.