Stupidity is a luxury.  The more separated you are from the consequences of your stupidity, the more stupidity you can survive, the more stupid you become.  Or, you can reverse the observation and state:  The closer you are to the consequences of your stupidity, the sooner and the more you pay for your stupidity, the more incentive to acquire objectivity.  The further we get from the last generation to be raised with the values and commitment to truth, right, and good, the more stupid our culture becomes.  We know that generation as the Greatest Generation.  That generation acquired its name by facing down the greatest evils of the last century and by producing the most successful economy the world has ever known.  They are the generation which grabbed onto the technology revolution with both hands and turned little ideas into great companies and generated productivity advances by leaps and bounds.  They faced the great challenges and defeated them and they ignored the most important duty they would ever have.  The duty to pass their values on to the next generation.  Their progeny were the stupid generation.  That generation which brought us the sit-in demonstration, the drop-out and drug cultures, and another return to the Utopian vision of world peace.  Why?  Because they were protected from the consequences of stupidity by their parents' wealth and blind faith in the professors to educate them with the best information and intent.  Unfortunately, those colleges were infected by the home grown communists.  Literal communists.

So, the stupid generation went to college.  Then, they went into entertainment and journalism and education.  These are three industries which do not depend on truth or objectivity.  All three industries with few exceptions, are protected from the consequences of objectivity blindness.  In education we find the hard sciences are the only place you can find conservatives and Republicans dominating on the college campus.  In entertainment, the only place you can find a conservative dominated field is sports.  Why?  Because the hard sciences are dependent on hard facts, objectivity.  The same with sports, the ball goes through the goal or the ball does not go through the goal.  It doesn't matter how many times and how well you explain the evil nature of the Jew and the Christian.  I'm sure I've mangled my attempt to title this observation by mixing Latin and French but... The defacto trifecta une betement is roughly translated 'the state of a perfect storm of foolish misinformation' resulting in full blown cultural delusion. 

When I was a kid, horror movies were truly horrific.  These days the entertainment industry creates image driven horror but back then, these movies had plots that laid out circumstances anyone could imagine themselves falling victim to such as a radio dj being stalked by a woman who appeared to be normal and in full control of her faculties, but who would set him up to be arrested and ruined if he did not meet her desires.  (Play Misty for Me)  Another was a nice looking motel which happened to have a caretaker who would kill overnighters and restore the room to normal before morning. (Psycho)  These movies took you into the lives of either the victims or the perpetrators if not both.  I bring this up because the next movie I mention is very much like the couch potato voter's experience in America today.  A woman is hired to be an office worker in an insane asylum.  She is received by the doctor and his staff and is pleased by their warm spirit.  She is set to work and goes through half the movie doing her job but finding odd things happening from time to time.  Before the movie is over, she realizes the good doctor and his staff are the inmates and the actual doctor and those remaining alive of his staff have been locked away in one of the padded rooms for weeks.  By the time this woman figures out what's going on, many of the other patients have been killed or maimed and her life is in dire jeapardy.

Let me just analagyze for a moment here.  If America is the insane asylum and socialist/communist/extremists' violence is against the founding fathers' ideals and the staff are those who hold true to those ideals, then the couch potato voters are the non-violent inmates, rather than the new hire.  A new hire would be an immigrant who values the same principals as the founding fathers.  New hires and non-violent inmates are being killed and maimed right along with the staff.  Immigrants, unsuspecting voters, and patriots to the founding fathers ideals are suffering tyrranny at the hands of the enemies of the founding fathers' ideals.  You guys helped these nuts get control of the asylum because they promised you a bunch of stuff you want, but they aren't delivering, because they can't deliver.  First they don't have the will to give you all the things they promised you.  Second, they couldn't if they tried, nobody has the resources to deliver on all those promises.  Third, even if we did have all those resources, they don't have the self discipline to deliver them because they first take everything they want.  Foruth, when you realize you aren't going to get what they promised you, the nuts are going to turn on you with all the vehemence they used on the staff.

I'm saying, America is literally headed toward becoming a communist state.  The nuts are destroying our Constitution right by right, legal precedent by legal precedent.  If the Republicans are going along, then they fall into the couch potato/non-violent role right beside you.  Their motivation is just like yours.  Personal profit.  But the modern day Liberal, the controlling force in American culture today, are literally parcing out favors and rights to promote their control and methodically destroying all the rest of our rights and wealth.  All the traditional information venues are controlled by these Modern day Liberals.  There is no police force to call in to set things right.  The framers of our Constitution wrote that right into the founding documents.  You have a right and the responsibility to ensure the government does not wrest control of our culture from the hands of those who value the framers' ideals.  Personal liberty comes with personal duty.  Your duty is to protect the individual's rights and hold government accountable to the rule of law.  If you won't, then liberty and rights are dead and the grand experiment of the culture of freedom is gone, perhaps forever more.  If we are not the next 'greatest generation' there may never be another opportunity for our children to be one.  Our only police force is you and the few who are finding other information venues like the internet are awakening to the real dangers, but it is highly unlikely enough will be motivated to act before its too late because this perfect storm of misinformation is keeping the majority either ignorant or in opposition to the steps we have to take. 

The following videos are long, approximately 35 minutes each, but you will not hear a more important message about the current condition of the Modern day Liberal's frame of mind.  Two years ago, Evan Sayet gave a speech at the Heritage Foundation that went viral and this year gave another expanding his examples.  The first video is the most recent.   If I haven't been clear enough or conveyed the dangers well enough for you to understand or believe my warnings, please listen to Evan explain the insanity we are observing in Wathington, in the media, in our kid's schools, and in the entertainment industry.

To quote Evan Sayet, "Every single medium in which there is honest open discussion, the Liberal looses.  He has to loose because he's always in opposition to the truth.  Take the same arguments the Liberals make on TV news and in the newspapers, into talk radio where they have to answer questions and they loose.  Take them to a townhall meeting or onto online debate forums and they loose.  Right?  Cable newstalk shows with representatives of both sides, they loose.  Viewers go to FOX news.  The only talk radio station they have has to have millions of dollars pumped into it by George Soros.  Their radio station is basically on welfare.  Liberal ideology cannot win in the marketplace of ideas."
KILL YOUR TV!!!

Ted West was commenting on his blog about his political motivations for ranting on the Liberals from another blog site and I thought I would go over and pour out my two cents on the community.  It seems they pay their bloggers to contribute.  So, I've started another new project and have been getting some payoff.  Literal payola.  So I have some articles written that I need to cross post back here.  Apologies to my VOX community for not responding lately.  The appeal of being paid to write was inebriating, but the reality of $10 a week payoff has sobered me.  You can check out the site and my work at BloggersBase.  I will continue to write here, but I need to adjust my rss to send complete articles rather than 1 or a partial paragraph so they will auto post there.  And, I'm going to have to go back to focusing on my blog theme instead of wandering all over the topic map as I've enjoyed doing over the past couple of years.  That said, I have a few issues of interest to broach just now, soooo...

I recently saw a report on the Aussie terror campaign in the form of setting wildland fires and accompanied that report with a photo of a wild koala being rescued from the ravaged forest.  Here is a video of that same koala during the rescue.

I ran across this report on Stumble Upon, the direction our country is taking and the reason so many states are suddenly so interested in the arcane secession movement is because our 'president' and this congress are making promises they have no authority to make, to put up the government's authority to implement eminent domain as collateral to China for the loans they are making to our government.  This story still needs verification but if true, we are either going to initiate a civil war or we are going to have our property and business sold off to the People's Republic of Communist China as the U.S. economy and the strength of the U.S. dollar decline.  This story has legs thus far on the back of an earlier report that China was calling for guarantees against the failing U.S. dollar.

This is literally a mortgaging of our sovereignty away to a communist state.  On a related topic, another blogger over at BloggersBase is predicting the global collapse of the international monetary system.  Personally, I think he is as bad as Al Gore using scare tactics to sell the global warming scam, but he is marketing gold.  Apart from that, he makes some compelling arguments for the gold standard.  Presently, we are experiencing a trend called Backwardation.  Essentially, Backwardation is the increasing real value of commodoty type money like gold and silver.  With fiat money like the dollar, the yen, the mark, there is no definition of real value.  With gold or silver, their value is set by the available quantity and the market demand on that quantity.  With fiat currencies both losing value and losing interest growth rates, the demand for commodoty currencies is ever increasing so that instead of paying 2000 ounces of gold for a particular piece of real estate, you can now pay 500 ounces of gold.  With the stock markets falling to 12-13 year lows and economists projecting worse and possibly much worse, investment wealth is evaporating.  Most investments have already lost half their value.  Investors are driving their wealth into liquid, 0 interest accounts for fear of continued value loss.  Banks are tight with their loaning principals all of a sudden and capital is nearly impossible to come by if you want to buy a big ticket item or start up a new business.  The only thing that will turn this all around is confidence.  Confidence in the dollar, confidence in the market, confidence in the investment structures, confidence in the government and thus far, not one of those entities is proving trustworthy.

Our government is putting up national sovereignty for collateral against loans from China.  States are moving to intercept the Fed's ability to interject eminent domain authority to sell all or parts of them, via Constitutional provisions for secession.  This does not breed confidence in our government.  Meanwhile, the stimulus continues to grow with each new examination of America's 'too big to fail' corporations and bailout programs.  The administration has submitted a projected spending budget of 3 trillion dollars for the year 2010.  What does the market have to be encouraged about?  The administration and the congress are legislating this country's hope and opportunity for recovery into the grave.  The move to sign away rights to business, property, or territories is a huge sign of failure and decline of the Great American Experiment.

In my last article I brought to you late breaking news about the assailing of our Constitution and government design.  Today, I am bringing the future history of our proud nation.  The story of how our great ship was sunk.  Unlike the ship in the video, this wreck of the good ship Liberty is well documented and its foolish captains and crew are having every command decision recorded for the world to see in real time.  In this case, the only power big enough, strong enough to face the threats against her name sake, 'freedom' and the world will remember the days of her influence with great sense of loss and sadness.

From Conservapedia

Conservative principles are based on reason. So why do non-conservatives still exist? Here are some reasons:

Statistical Analysis

(Estimates)

• 30%: did not hear about conservative principles, their logic and full benefits until after they made up their mind and, perhaps due to pervasive societal bias, refuse to reconsider
• 15%: lack of desire to find the truth, and a greater desire in gaining attention, praise by liberal teachers, getting along by going along, and not standing up to liberal bullies
• 15%: refuse to let go of their past, especially their past mistakes and image
• 10%: fooled by the demonizing of conservatives and mistakenly feel that conservative benefits are available only to those who are from an intact family or privileged background
• 10%: refuse to rise above their personal temptations, often self-destructive, and hate conservatives who criticize their self-indulgent behavior
• 10%: bitterly unemployed, or having a salary or benefits that conservatives would reduce, such as public school teachers, and a refusal to rise above self-interest
• 5%: were told off or disciplined once by a conservative, often a parent or ex-spouse, and harbor a grudge or refuse to rise above the animosity
• 5%: like an anarchist, genuinely want to believe in and propagate destructive ideas

What Triggers Reconsideration of Liberal Beliefs?

What triggers reconsideration of liberal beliefs? Here are some estimates:

• 25%: raising or teaching children, and realizing how destructive liberal values are to many of them
• 20%: a religious conversion followed by taking the Bible to heart
• 15%: a loss of a loved one that resulted from accepting or promoting liberal values, as in losing a loved one to crime caused by pornography, drug addiction, gambling, etc.
• 10%: a new friendship with someone who is conservative, and realizing how much good flows from the conservative values^[1]
• 10%: simply by maturing and seeing liberalism's impact around them, and realizing what they were taught as youth was wrong
• 10%: a desire to learn the truth, and a dislike for those who mislead
• 5%: using conservative values to overcome an addiction, and then realizing the benefits of conservative values in many other ways
• 5%: taking a truthful course in economics, or learning it in the workforce^[2]

Cultural indoctrination

• Brainwashing and deceit:

• They pride themselves on doing well in school or reading the newspaper, can't accept that what they were taught was incorrect or biased.
• Dangerous professors who impose their opinions upon vulnerable youth.
• Television programs posing as comedies, such as South Park, Family Guy, and The Simpsons, which inject liberal beliefs and mock conservative values
• Exposed to incorrect liberal ideas throughout education. Standard American kindergartens up to the fourth grade. Wastes the potential of most children—does not expose them to foreign languages and other learning tasks their minds are obviously and mysteriously suited for. All helping to make them think they need liberal man-made structures that in fact limit their potential in a self-defeating sort of cycle.
• Indoctrination by liberal churches which have a disproportionate focus on biblical passages that appear to support liberal positions, eg. the adulteress story, the disciples holding everything in common, etc.
• A blind obsession to be famous, act and imitate the ways of their famous idols, to absorb their ideals as their own.
• Failure to realize that modern science and modern wealth are the result of historical processes set into motion by God-fearing Christian Conservatives like Blaise Pascal, Robert Boyle, Isaac Newton, and James Maxwell. (When the obvious importance of Christianity to these scientific figures' everyday lives comes up in an academic situation, dangerous professors—liberal historians and liberal scientists—have been known to label it as "some mental disorder".)
• Elementary through high school textbooks having appalling and reprehensible omissions on the basic facts of American life (religion, marriage, politics, and business)^[3]
• For decades Universities have discriminated against hiring conservatives, especially social conservatives and religious believers.^[4] This has resulted in most college graduates being exposed to liberals prejudiced against conservatives and conservative thought. These graduates become the teachers and other professionals who are unwitting soldiers in liberalism's battle against a Christian Reformed, Roman-Catholic/Anglican/Orthodox, obedient-to-God reality.

• No exposure:

• Current fashions in American professional behavior make expressions of Christian faith awkward in the workaday world.
• Increasing zone of publicly funded anti-religious fanaticism (e.g., no prayer in public schools)
• Spectacle of entertainment industry (e.g., movies and T.V.) cuts into traditionally popular Christian church social activities
• Most univeristies and hospitals have forgotten or have been forced to deny (to get various grants and even retirement benefits for their professors) their religious roots. Catholic affiliated institutions remain one of the few exceptions (few or possibly no other body of Christians can make legitimate claims of offering modern Pastoral care as the Roman Catholic church)

• Peer Pressure:

• They have liberal friends, and want their approval or acceptance.
• They live in a predominantly liberal state or community and fear rejection from said community.

• Systemic bias:

• Some people are inherently irrational, and are thus driven to liberal ideology.
• Their job and salary, such as working for public schools, depends on keeping conservatives out of power.
• Media bias acts to caricature conservatism, making it seem unpalatable, conditioning people to reject its teachings.
• Schools reward politically correct, liberal answers on tests.
• Negative focusing by the media highlights personal flaws of conservatives, driving people to choose to identify with liberals rather than be categorized with those traits.

• See also: Mystery:Why Do Black Americans Vote For Liberal Candidates?

Liberal characteristics

• Poor abstract thinking:

• They have trouble understanding some of the slightly abstract concepts in conservatism, such as "more guns, less crime," and "less taxes, more revenue."
• They are more comfortable discussing simple issues like race and poverty than complex issues like globalism.
• Intellectual myopia - failure to heed the long-term consequences of ideological positions that seem beneficial in the short term.
• Stereotyping: They knew a conservative whom they disliked for some reason, and tar all others with the same brush.
• Ignorance: politics isn't a priority for some people. Without any wish to learn to think for themselves, some liberals don't bother to think through what's right, and just go with what's "cool."

• Closed-minded:

• They made up their mind before hearing conservative principles, and will not reconsider their views.
• They have something criticized by conservatives in their personal background, and feel compelled to defend it rather than let it go.
• Slavish adherence to the ideals of liberal parents

• Naivety:

• Non-conservatives demonstrate just how prone mankind is to arrogance.
• An admiration for historical figures whom liberals claim were liberals.
• A desire for large government inculcated by personal weakness and reluctance to take personal responsibility.
• Impressionable individuals buying into Bush derangement syndrome, and reacting with emotion rather than reason.
• Reliance on charisma: Charismatic leaders trading on image, rather than experience, can dupe the unsuspecting.

• Self-destructive or contrarian behavior:

• Some choose to do what is irrational.
• Use of mind-altering drugs, which encourages one to become a liberal to reconcile the cognitive dissonance, or dulls mental acuity resulting in mindless conformity.
• Sexual experimentation to make up for lack of self-esteem, often with multiple partners, with partners of the same gender, or in public places
• Unthinking rebellion against conservative parents.
• Determined to prove their "independence of mind" by denying authority

References

1. ↑ See, e.g., the conversion of Ronald Reagan based in his friendship with his conservative father-in-law, Loyal Davis.[1]
2. ↑ See, e.g., the conversion of Nobel Laureate Ronald Coase.
3. ↑ Censorship: Evidence of Bias in Our Children's textbooks, Paul C. Vitz, Servant Books, 1986, ISBN 0-89283-305-X, (this book contains the results of a federally funded research project analyzing children's textbooks)
4. ↑ A Student's Guide to Religious Studies, D. G. Hart, ISI Books, 2005, ISBN 1932236589, 9781932236583, 108 pages; see page 38 and note on page 107.

If the new New Deal wasn't scary enough, perhaps the strangling of the constitutionally designed checks and balances is.  The Obaba administration is pulling out more stops than most pundits knew existed.  Here is yet another.   The Liberals are amassing power to themselves in ways that haven't been attempted since their initial trial back at the beginning of the Great Depression.  Are you ready for this?  No dissent allowed.

Effort to Stack Supreme Court Taking Shape

World AffairsPolitics & Opinions

posted on Tuesday, February 17, 2009 7:20 PMBy jmalmberg

February 17, 2009 – In 1936, President Franklin Roosevelt was not happy with the Supreme Court. The Court had declared a number of the measures he was trying to implement in the name of fighting the Depression unconstitutional. Effectively, the Court was telling Roosevelt that he was meddling in state matters where the federal government didn’t have jurisdiction. So a dirty little trick was hatched, and in 1937 the administration advanced a proposal to stack the Court. Although the proposal failed, it created an environment that called the independence of the court system into question and in which the Court was actually afraid to overturn legislation in the name of the Constitution. And now a group of 31 intellectuals and former politicians with some of the most liberal leanings in the country are proposing that Congress take up a similar measure.

Roosevelt’s proposal was simple. He wanted Congress to allow him to make one judicial appointment for every federal judge who served past the age of 70 years and six months. This would have allowed him to appoint six new Supreme Court Justices as well as 44 other appointments to lower courts. Because the Supreme Court had been divided on a number of decisions regarding the New Deal, the scheme would have assured Roosevelt that the Court would no longer overturn his proposed laws.

As it turned out, just the threat of the court packing scheme was enough to stop the Court from voting against him. And its effect was profound. In fact, from 1937 to 1995, not one single piece of legislation passed by Congress and signed into law by a President was declared unconstitutional. And during that same period of time, the federal government began to regulate everything from drug usage to the number of hours per day that schools are required to teach. In short, Roosevelt’s plan allowed the federal government to not only intrude on every day life, but to heavily regulate it.

The new proposal being put forth is called the Supreme Court Renewal Act of 2009. It differs in certain respects from the 1937 proposal but its effect would be similar. Among other things, it would allow the President and Congress to appoint a new Supreme Court Justice every two years without forcing the retirement of sitting justices, rotate the position of Chief Justice and force the court to decide cases it doesn’t want by placing the decision for which cases are heard in the hands of lower court judges.

The effect of the proposal would be to grow the size of the court and to politicize it. Sitting Presidents would have much greater influence over the court than they currently do. No longer could decisions rendered by the court be considered independent.

The proposal would also put much more influence into the hands of lower courts. With some limitations, those deciding which cases the Court should hear could effectively avoid having their decisions overturned by not submitting certain cases to the review process. This is neither desirable nor efficient.

To understand the reason for the proposal, you really need to take a look at those who are making it. Vikram D. Amar is a law professor at Berkley and UC Davis and has received awards from the ACLU. Paul D. Carrington is a professor at Duke who has openly lamented about the removal of Rose Bird - who was ultra-liberal even by California standards - by California voters as Chief Justice of the California Supreme Court. (Note: As a native Californian who remembers Rose Bird vividly, I can tell you that she deserved to be shown the door.) Lino A. Graglia, although leaning conservative in many areas, has compared the US Supreme Court to Iran’s “grand council of ayatollahs” and argues that the courts should be used to pursue social changes.  And that covers just a few of the thirty one people who are making the proposal to Congress. Most of the others have similar credentials. These so called intellectuals are largely opposed to the idea of a conservative Supreme Court.

The purpose of the Supreme Court is not, and should not be, to advance political views or a social agenda. The Court is there to insure that laws are constitutional and applied as intended by Congress. If the Court becomes stacked or more political, the Constitution is likely to take a back seat to the political winds of the day; a situation that would jeopardize each of our constitutional rights.

It is also important to note that an independent judiciary is constitutionally required. The changes being proposed by this “group of 31” would certainly bring that independence into question.

But the risk posed by this proposal is real. Rahm Emmanuel, President Obama’s chief of staff has said that “you never want to let a serious crisis go to waste.” And the circumstanced under which Obama comes to office are all to similar to those surrounding FDR’s assent. This means that the proposal can’t simply be dismissed.

This new scheme to stack the court must be viewed with great concern by anyone who believes in the principles laid out in the Constitution. It is worth noting that many years after Roosevelt pushed through his New Deal, one of its chief architects – Rexford Tugwell – said of it, “To the extent that these policies developed, they were the tortured interpretations of a document (the Constitution) intended to prevent them.” He is clearly saying that the Roosevelt administration understood that the New Deal was unconstitutional but that they didn’t really care.

Note: When posting a comment, please sign-in first if you want a response. If you are not registered, click here. Registration is easy and free.

It is true that I disapprove of abortion.  I know that this practice kills more than one million babies every year.  I know

It is true that I disapprove of the homosexual lifestyle.  I know that this behavior is self destructive and millions of people suffer damage and disease to their bodies in its practice.  I know that the gay lobby in America is pushing its acceptance into every corner of our culture including our schools' kindergartens.  I know that this push is making our children's gender identity malleable and perverting their innocent psyches before they are ready for knowledge of such things.  I don't take that disapproval and go around beating and killing homosexuals.  That is what would demonstrate hate.  My faith instructs me to invite them to join me in this faith so they can learn that this behavior is harmful to our society as well as to themselves.

It is true that I disapprove of the religion of Islam.  I know that this religion has not been hijacked, that it practices the concept of justifiable deception, and that it requires its followers to institute world wide Sharia Law.  The same law that requires unequal treatment of women, blacks, and unbelievers.  I don't take that disapproval and go around beating and killing Muslims.  That is what would demonstrate hate.  My faith instructs me to invite them to join me in my faith so they can learn the source of real peace rather than Islam's brand of violent domination and overthrow of differing faiths and governance.

It is true that I disapprove of socialism.  I know that this is the stepping stone toward Communism, Maoism, and basic despotism including regimes like Hugo Chavez, Fidel Castro, Polpot, and countless others.  I have studied a little history and seen that the end of this ideology of building a utopia on earth is always, always the last step before re-education camps, Gulags, genocides, and so-called freedom wars against free and successful societies.  I don't take that disapproval and go around beating and killing socialists.  That is what demonstrates hatred.  My faith instructs me to invite socialists to join me in this faith so they can learn that people are inherently evil and must fight their own natures so they can live together in peace.

Hatred is not demonstrated in critical speech just because the speech is critical.  Hatred is demonstrated in speech and actions that intend harm.  Actions like keying cars, stealing burning or otherwise destroying political yard signs spray painting threats onto a candidates garage door firebombing a billboard or any of a hundred other examples is a form of intimidation.  Actions which intimidate others for their views is an abuse of their right to freedom of speech.  Hatred is demonstrated in speech which is intended to intimidate as well.  Do not confuse hatred with an opposing view on what's good for our culture and society.  Do not equate criticism with hatred.

Foreign Aid to U.S. for Katrina

I have argued with Liberals on world opinion about America.  The Liberals have charged that the world hates America for its imperialism and its consumption of the world's resources.  The Liberals really believe that we are a force for evil in the world.  I think this video displays the fallacy of that charge.  We have poured out our resources on struggling people around the world whether we are in good times or bad.  We have spent trillions in efforts to spread human rights and humanitarian aid and we have spilt American blood in the attempt to defend the defenseless.  When America was hit by hurricane Katrina, the world was ready to give back, many at great personal cost.

So you think the war against radical Islam isn't reason enough to vote conservative even though this is the most compelling issue of our time.  If you look at history with the lead up to the second World War and all the appeasement efforts and all the desire to talk Germany, Japan, and Italy into reasonable behavior.  The very same mistakes are being made today with Islam and worse.  Supposing the war was not an issue, what would be the next most compelling issue of our time?

California's highest court has decided the people's will does not matter.  In a vote 4 to 3 they have decided to usurp the power of the people and to write law over the power and authority of the state legislature to impose their will on virtually the people of California.  I have linked the justification for their decision here.  But Justice Baxter in his dissenting opinion has explained far better than I can exactly why this decision is horrible wherever you stand on the gay marriage issue.  Just to state the reasons in a concise manner, Four people in black robes have usurped the will of the people of California, one of the most liberal states in the union and after we have voted to define marraige as a union between one man and one woman.  These four judges have overthrown the process and have read into the state's constitution something it does not say in order to force their will on all the rest of us.  If a Democrat wins this election, they will put judges on the highest court in the land who desire to use this method of legislating from the bench to usurp the will of the people and hand down decisions that overstep their authority the same as these judges have.

Gay marriage judges

CONCURRING AND DISSENTING OPINION BY BAXTER, J.
The majority opinion reflects considerable research, thought, and effort on
a significant and sensitive case, and I actually agree with several of the majority’s
conclusions. However, I cannot join the majority’s holding that the California
Constitution gives same-sex couples a right to marry. In reaching this decision,
I believe, the majority violates the separation of powers, and thereby commits
profound error.

Only one other American state recognizes the right the majority announces
today. So far, Congress, and virtually every court to consider the issue, has
rejected it. Nothing in our Constitution, express or implicit, compels the
majority’s startling conclusion that the age-old understanding of marriage — an
understanding recently confirmed by an initiative law — is no longer valid.
California statutes already recognize same-sex unions and grant them all the
substantive legal rights this state can bestow. If there is to be a further sea change
in the social and legal understanding of marriage itself, that evolution should occur
by similar democratic means. The majority forecloses this ordinary democratic
process, and, in doing so, oversteps its authority.

The majority’s mode of analysis is particularly troubling. The majority
relies heavily on the Legislature’s adoption of progressive civil rights protections
for gays and lesbians to find a constitutional right to same-sex marriage. In effect,
the majority gives the Legislature indirectly power that body does not directly
possess to amend the Constitution and repeal an initiative statute. I cannot
subscribe to the majority’s reasoning, or to its result.

As noted above, I do not dispute everything the majority says. At the
outset, I join the majority’s observation that “[f]rom the beginning of California
statehood, the legal institution of civil marriage has been understood to refer to a
relationship between a man and a woman.” (Maj. opn., ante, at p. 23, fn. omitted.)
Moreover, I endorse the majority’s interpretation of California’s Domestic
Partnership Act (DPA; Fam. Code, § 297 et seq.). As the majority makes clear,
the DPA now allows same-sex partners to enter legal unions which “afford . . .
virtually all of the [substantive] benefits and responsibilities afforded by California
law to married opposite-sex couples.” (Maj. opn., ante, at p. 45; see also Fam.
Code, § 297.5.) As the majority further correctly observes, California has done all
it can do with regard to providing these substantive rights, benefits, and
responsibilities to same-sex partners. (Maj. opn., ante, at pp. 44-45.)1

I also agree with the majority’s construction of Family Code section 308.5.
As the majority explains, this initiative statute, adopted by a popular vote of 61.4
percent and thus immune from unilateral repeal by the Legislature (Cal. Const.,
art. II, § 10, subdivision (c)), does not merely preclude California’s recognition of
same-sex “marriage[s]” consummated elsewhere, but also invalidates same-sex
“marriage[s]” contracted under that name in this state.2

In addition, I am fully in accord with the majority’s conclusion that Family
Code sections 300 and 308.5, insofar as they recognize only legal relationships
between opposite-sex partners as “marriage[s],” do not discriminate on the basis of
gender.

Finally, I concur that the actions in Proposition 22 Legal Defense and
Education Fund v. City and County of San Francisco (Super. Ct. S.F. City &
County No. CPF-04-503943) and Campaign for California Families v. Newsom
(Super. Ct. S.F. City & County No. CGC-04-428794) should have been dismissed
as moot in the wake of this court’s decision in Lockyer v. City and County of San
Francisco (2004) 33 Cal.4th 1055.

However, I respectfully disagree with the remainder of the conclusions
reached by the majority.

The question presented by this case is simple and stark. It comes down to
this: Even though California’s progressive laws, recently adopted through the
democratic process, have pioneered the rights of same-sex partners to enter legal
unions with all the substantive benefits of opposite-sex legal unions, do those laws
nonetheless violate the California Constitution because at present, in deference to
long and universal tradition, by a convincing popular vote, and in accord with
express national policy (see fns. 1, 2, ante), they reserve the label “marriage” for
opposite-sex legal unions?3 I must conclude that the answer is no.

The People, directly or through their elected representatives, have every
right to adopt laws abrogating the historic understanding that civil marriage is
between a man and a woman. The rapid growth in California of statutory protections
for the rights of gays and lesbians, as individuals, as parents, and as
committed partners, suggests a quickening evolution of community attitudes on
these issues. Recent years have seen the development of an intense debate about
same-sex marriage. Advocates of this cause have had real success in the
marketplace of ideas, gaining attention and considerable public support. Left to its
own devices, the ordinary democratic process might well produce, ere long, a
consensus among most Californians that the term “marriage” should, in civil
parlance, include the legal unions of same-sex partners.

But a bare majority of this court, not satisfied with the pace of democratic
change, now abruptly forestalls that process and substitutes, by judicial fiat, its
own social policy views for those expressed by the People themselves.
Undeterred by the strong weight of state and federal law and authority,4 the
majority invents a new constitutional right, immune from the ordinary process of
legislative consideration. The majority finds that our Constitution suddenly
demands no less than a permanent redefinition of marriage, regardless of the
popular will.

In doing so, the majority holds, in effect, that the Legislature has done
indirectly what the Constitution prohibits it from doing directly. Under article II,
section 10, subdivision (c), that body cannot unilaterally repeal an initiative
statute, such as Family Code section 308.5, unless the initiative measure itself so
provides. Section 308.5 contains no such provision. Yet the majority suggests
that, by enacting other statutes which do provide substantial rights to gays and
lesbians — including domestic partnership rights which, under section 308.5, the
Legislature could not call “marriage” — the Legislature has given “explicit
official recognition” (maj. opn., ante, at pp. 68, 69) to a California right of equal
treatment which, because it includes the right to marry, thereby invalidates section
308.5.5

I cannot join this exercise in legal jujitsu, by which the Legislature’s own
weight is used against it to create a constitutional right from whole cloth, defeat
the People’s will, and invalidate a statute otherwise immune from legislative
interference. Though the majority insists otherwise, its pronouncement seriously
oversteps the judicial power. The majority purports to apply certain fundamental
provisions of the state Constitution, but it runs afoul of another just as fundamental
— article III, section 3, the separation of powers clause. This clause declares that
“[t]he powers of state government are legislative, executive, and judicial,” and that
“[p]ersons charged with the exercise of one power may not exercise either of the
others” except as the Constitution itself specifically provides. (Italics added.)
History confirms the importance of the judiciary’s constitutional role as a
check against majoritarian abuse. Still, courts must use caution when exercising
the potentially transformative authority to articulate constitutional rights.
Otherwise, judges with limited accountability risk infringing upon our society’s
most basic shared premise — the People’s general right, directly or through their
chosen legislators, to decide fundamental issues of public policy for themselves.
Judicial restraint is particularly appropriate where, as here, the claimed
constitutional entitlement is of recent conception and challenges the most
fundamental assumption about a basic social institution.

The majority has violated these principles. It simply does not have the right
to erase, then recast, the age-old definition of marriage, as virtually all societies
have understood it, in order to satisfy its own contemporary notions of equality
and justice.

The California Constitution says nothing about the rights of same-sex
couples to marry. On the contrary, as the majority concedes, our original
Constitution, effective from the moment of statehood, evidenced an assumption
that marriage was between partners of the opposite sex. Statutes enacted at the
state’s first legislative session confirmed this assumption, which has continued to
the present day. When the Legislature realized that 1971 amendments to the Civil
Code, enacted for other reasons, had created an ambiguity on the point, the
oversight was quickly corrected, and the definition of marriage as between a man
and a woman was made explicit. (Maj. opn., ante, at pp. 23-36.) The People
themselves reaffirmed this definition when, in the year 2000, they adopted
Proposition 22 by a 61.4 percent majority.

Despite this history, plaintiffs first insist they have a fundamental right,
protected by the California Constitution’s due process and privacy clauses (Cal.
Const., art. I, §§ 1, 7, subd. (a)), to marry the adult consenting partners of their
choice, regardless of gender. The majority largely accepts this contention. It
holds that “the right to marry, as embodied in article I, sections 1 and 7, of the
California Constitution, guarantees same-sex couples the same substantive
constitutional rights as opposite-sex couples to . . . enter with [one’s chosen life
partner] into a committed, officially recognized, and protected family relationship
that enjoys all of the constitutionally based incidents of marriage.” (Maj. opn.,
ante, at p. 79, fn. omitted.) Further, the majority declares, a “core element[ ] of
this fundamental right is the right of same-sex couples to have their official family
relationship accorded the same dignity, respect, and stature as that accorded to all
other officially recognized family relationships.” (Id., at p. 81.)

To the extent this means same-sex couples have a fundamental right to
enter legally recognized family unions called “marriage” (or, as the majority
unrealistically suggests, by another name common to both same-sex and opposite-
sex unions), I cannot agree. I find no persuasive basis in our Constitution or our
jurisprudence to justify such a cataclysmic transformation of this venerable
institution.

Fundamental rights entitled to the Constitution’s protection are those
“which are, objectively, ‘deeply rooted in this [society’s] history and tradition,’
[citations], and ‘implicit in the concept of ordered liberty,’ such that ‘neither
liberty nor justice could exist if they were sacrificed, [citation].” (Washington v.
Glucksberg (1997) 521 U.S. 702, 720-721 (Glucksberg); see, e.g., Dawn D. v.
Superior Court (1998) 17 Cal.4th 932, 940.) Moreover, an assessment whether a
fundamental right or interest is at stake requires “a ‘careful description’ of the
asserted fundamental . . . interest. [Citations.]” (Glucksberg, supra, at p. 721;
Dawn D., supra, at p. 941.)

These principles are crucial restraints upon the overreaching exercise of
judicial authority in violation of the separation of powers. Courts have “ ‘always
been reluctant to expand the concept of substantive due process because
guideposts for responsible decisionmaking in this unchartered area are scarce and
open-ended.’ [Citation.] By extending constitutional protection to an asserted
right or liberty interest, we, to a great extent, place the matter outside the arena of
public debate and legislative action. We must therefore ‘exercise the utmost care
whenever we are asked to break new ground in this field,’ [citation], lest the
liberty protected by the Due Process Clause be subtly transformed into the policy
preferences” of judges. (Glucksberg, supra, 521 U.S. 702, 720.)

It is beyond dispute, as the Court of Appeal majority in this case
persuasively indicated, that there is no deeply rooted tradition of same-sex
marriage, in the nation or in this state. Precisely the opposite is true. The concept
of same-sex marriage was unknown in our distant past, and is novel in our recent
history, because the universally understood definition of marriage has been the
legal or religious union of a man and a woman.6

One state, Massachusetts, has within the past five years recognized samesex
marriage. (Goodridge, supra, 798 A.2d 941; see fn. 4, ante.) However, as the
Court of Appeal majority in our case observed, “the Massachusetts Supreme
Judicial Court’s decision establishing this right has been controversial. (See, e.g.,
Note, Civil Partnership in the United Kingdom and a Moderate Proposal for
Change in the United States (2005) 22 Ariz. J. Internat. & Comparative L. 613,
630-631 [describing the controversy engendered by Goodridge]; see also Lewis v.
Harris [(N.J.Super.Ct.App.Div. 2005) 875 A.2d 259, 274] [concluding from ‘the
strongly negative public reactions’ to Goodridge, and similar decisions from lower
courts of other states, that ‘there is not yet any public consensus favoring
recognition of same-sex marriage’].) Several other states have reacted negatively
by, for example, amending their constitutions to prohibit same-sex marriage. (See
Stein, Symposium on Abolishing Civil Marriage: An Introduction (2006)
27 Cardozo L.Rev. 1155, 1157, fn. 12 [noting, as of January 2006, ‘39 states [had]
either passed laws or amended their constitutions (or done both) to prohibit samesex
marriages, to deny recognition of same-sex marriages from other jurisdictions,
and/or to deny recognition to other types of same-sex relationships’].)”

California’s history falls squarely along this nationwide spectrum, though at
its more progressive end. As the majority itself explains, despite the Legislature’s
passage of the DPA and other statutes pioneering gay and lesbian rights,
California law has always assumed that marriage itself is between a man and a
woman. In recent years, both the Legislature and the People themselves have
enacted measures to make that assumption explicit. Under these circumstances,
there is no basis for a conclusion that same-sex marriage is a deeply rooted
California tradition.

Undaunted, the majority nonetheless claims California’s legal history as
evidence of the constitutional right it espouses. According to the majority, the
very fact that the Legislature has, over time, adopted progressive laws such as the
DPA, thereby granting many substantial rights to gays and lesbians, constitutes
“explicit official recognition” (maj. opn., ante, at pp. 68, 69) of “this state’s
current policies and conduct regarding homosexuality,” i.e., “that gay individuals
are entitled to the same legal rights and the same respect and dignity afforded all
other individuals and are protected from discrimination on the basis of their sexual
orientation.” (Maj. opn., ante, at pp. 67-68, fn. omitted.) “In light of this
recognition,” the majority concludes, “sections 1 and 7 of article I of the
California Constitution cannot properly be interpreted to withhold from gay
individuals” full equality of rights with heterosexual persons, including the right to
same-sex legal unions that are fully equivalent —including in name — to those of
opposite-sex partners. (Id., at p. 69; see also id., at pp. 81, 101-119.)

This analysis is seriously flawed. At the outset, it overlooks the most
salient facts. The Legislature has indeed granted many rights to gay and lesbian
individuals, including the right to enter same-sex legal unions with all the
substantive rights and benefits of civil marriage. As the majority elsewhere
acknowledges, however, our current statutory scheme, which includes an initiative
measure enacted by the People, specifically reserves marriage itself for oppositesex
unions. (Fam. Code, §§ 300, 308.5.) Under these circumstances, it is difficult
to see how our legislative history reflects a current community value in favor of
same-sex marriage that must now be enshrined in the Constitution.7

Of even greater concern is the majority’s mode of analysis, which places
heavy reliance on statutory law to establish a constitutional right. When a pattern
of legislation makes current community values clear, the majority seems to say,
those values can become locked into the Constitution itself.8

Of course, only the People can amend the Constitution; the Legislature has
no unilateral power to do so. (Cal. Const., art. XVIII.) However, the effect of the
majority’s reasoning is to suggest that the Legislature can accomplish such
amendment indirectly, whether it intends to do so or not, by reflecting current
community attitudes in the laws it enacts.

The notion that legislation can become “constitutionalized” is mischievous
for several reasons. As indicated above, it violates the constitutional scheme by
which only the People can amend the state’s charter of government. It abrogates
the legislative power to reconsider what the law should be as public debate on an
issue ebbs and flows. And, for that very reason, it may discourage efforts to pass
progressive laws, out of fear that such efforts will ultimately, and inadvertently,
place the issue beyond the power of legislation to affect.

As applied in this case, the majority’s analysis has also given the
Legislature, indirectly, a power it does not otherwise possess to thwart the
People’s express legislative will. As noted above, under article II, section 10,
subdivision (c) of the California Constitution, “[t]he Legislature may amend or
repeal . . . an initiative statute by another statute that becomes effective only when
approved by the electors unless the initiative statute permits amendment or repeal
without their approval.” (Italics added.) Family Code section 308.5, adopted by
Proposition 22, includes no provision allowing its unilateral repeal or amendment
by the Legislature.

According to the majority, however, the Legislature’s adoption of
progressive laws on the subject of gay and lesbian rights, including the DPA,
makes it impossible not to recognize a constitutional right to same-sex legal
unions with full equivalency to opposite-sex legal unions. This development, the
majority ultimately concludes, requires the invalidation of Family Code section
308.5. In other words, in the majority’s view, the Legislature’s own actions have,
by indirection, caused this initiative statute to be erased from the books. To say
the least, I find such a constitutional approach troubling.9

Other grounds advanced by the majority for its claim of a fundamental right
are equally unpersuasive. The majority accepts plaintiffs’ unconvincing claim that
they seek no new “right to same-sex marriage” (maj. opn., ante, at p. 51), but
simply a recognition that the well-established right to marry one’s chosen partner
is not limited to those who wish to marry persons of the opposite sex. However,
by framing the issue simply as whether the undoubted right to marry is confined to
opposite-sex couples, the majority mischaracterizes the entitlement plaintiffs
actually claim. The majority thus begs the question and violates the requirement
of “ ‘careful description’ ” that properly applies when a court is asked to break
new ground in the area of substantive due process. (Glucksberg, supra, 521 U.S.
702, 721-722.)

Though the majority insists otherwise, plaintiffs seek, and the majority
grants, a new right to same-sex marriage that only recently has been urged upon
our social and legal system. Because civil marriage is an institution historically
defined as the legal union of a man and a woman, plaintiffs could not succeed
except by convincing this court to insert in our Constitution an altered and
expanded definition of marriage — one that includes same-sex partnerships for the
first time. By accepting that invitation, the majority places this controversial issue
beyond the realm of legislative debate and substitutes its own judgment in the
matter for the considered wisdom of the People and their elected representatives.
The majority advances no persuasive reason for taking that step.

In support of its view that marriage is a constitutional entitlement without
regard for the genders of the respective partners, the majority cites the many
California and federal decisions broadly describing the basic rights of personal
autonomy and family intimacy, including the right to marry, procreate, establish a
home, and bring up children. (See maj. opn., ante, at pp. 49-65.) However, none
of the cited decisions holds, or remotely suggests, that any right to marry
recognized by the Constitution extends beyond the traditional definition of
marriage to include same-sex partnerships.

Certainly Perez v. Sharp (1948) 32 Cal.2d 711 (Perez) does not support the
majority’s expansive view. There we struck down racial restrictions on the right
of a man and a woman to marry. But nothing in Perez suggests an intent to alter
the definition of marriage as a union of opposite-sex partners. In sum, there is no
convincing basis in federal or California jurisprudence for the majority’s claim
that same-sex couples have a fundamental constitutional right to marry.10

In a footnote, the majority insists that, though same-sex couples are
included within the fundamental constitutional right to marry, the state’s absolute
bans on marriages that are incestuous (Fam. Code, § 2200; see Pen. Code, § 285),
or nonmonogamous (Pen. Code, § 281 et seq.; Fam. Code, § 2201) are not in
danger. Vaguely the majority declares that “[p]ast judicial decisions explain why
our nation’s culture has considered [incestuous and polygamous] relationships
inimical to the mutually supportive and healthy family relationships promoted by
the constitutional right to marry. [Citations.]” (Maj. opn., ante, at p. 79, fn. 52.)
Thus, the majority asserts, though a denial of same-sex marriage is no longer
justified, “the state continues to have a strong and adequate justification for
refusing to officially sanction polygamous or incestuous relationships because of
their potentially detrimental effect on a sound family environment. [Citations.]”
(Id, at pp. 79-80.)

The bans on incestuous and polygamous marriages are ancient and deeprooted,
and, as the majority suggests, they are supported by strong considerations
of social policy. Our society abhors such relationships, and the notion that our
laws could not forever prohibit them seems preposterous. Yet here, the majority
overturns, in abrupt fashion, an initiative statute confirming the equally deeprooted
assumption that marriage is a union of partners of the opposite sex. The
majority does so by relying on its own assessment of contemporary community
values, and by inserting in our Constitution an expanded definition of the right to
marry that contravenes express statutory law.

That approach creates the opportunity for further judicial extension of this
perceived constitutional right into dangerous territory. Who can say that, in ten,
fifteen, or twenty years, an activist court might not rely on the majority’s analysis
to conclude, on the basis of a perceived evolution in community values, that the
laws prohibiting polygamous and incestuous marriages were no longer
constitutionally justified?

In no way do I equate same-sex unions with incestuous and polygamous
relationships as a matter of social policy or social acceptance. California’s
adoption of the DPA makes clear that our citizens find merit in the desires of gay
and lesbian couples for legal recognition of their committed partnerships.
Moreover, as I have said, I can foresee a time when the People might agree to
assign the label marriage itself to such unions. It is unlikely, to say the least, that
our society would ever confer such favor on incest and polygamy.

My point is that the majority’s approach has removed the sensitive issues
surrounding same-sex marriage from their proper forum — the arena of legislative
resolution — and risks opening the door to similar treatment of other, less
deserving, claims of a right to marry. By thus moving the policy debate from the
legislative process to the court, the majority engages in faulty constitutional
analysis and violates the separation of powers.

I would avoid these difficulties by confirming clearly that there is no
constitutional right to same-sex marriage. That is because marriage is, as it always
has been, the right of a woman and an unrelated man to marry each other.
From this conclusion, it follows, for substantive due process purposes, that
the marriage statutes are valid unless unreasonable or arbitrary (see, e.g.,
Kavanau v. Santa Monica Rent Control Bd. (1997) 16 Cal.4th 761, 771), and are
not subject to the strict scrutiny that applies when a statute infringes a fundamental
right or interest. As I discuss below, California’s preservation of the traditional
definition of marriage is entirely reasonable. Accordingly, I would reject
plaintiffs’ due process claim.

Besides concluding that Family Code sections 300 and 308.5 are subject to
strict scrutiny as an infringement on the fundamental state constitutional right to
marry, the majority also independently holds that such scrutiny is required under
the equal protection clause of the California Constitution. This is so, the majority
declares, because by withholding from same-sex legal unions the label that is
applied to opposite-sex legal unions, the scheme discriminates on the basis of
sexual orientation, which the majority now deems to be a suspect classification.

I find this analysis flawed at several levels. For two reasons, I would reject
plaintiffs’ equal protection claim at the threshold. And even if that were not
appropriate, I disagree that sexual orientation is a suspect classification. Hence, as
with the majority’s due process theory, I would not apply strict scrutiny, and
would uphold the statutory scheme as reasonable. I explain my conclusions.

“The general rule is that legislation is presumed to be valid and will be
sustained if the classification drawn by the statute is rationally related to a
legitimate state interest. [Citations.] When social or economic legislation is at
issue, the Equal Protection Clause allows the States wide latitude, [citations], and
the Constitution presumes that even improvident decisions will eventually be
rectified by the democratic processes.” (Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center, Inc.
(1985) 473 U.S. 432, 440, italics added (Cleburne).)

“The initial inquiry in any equal protection analysis is whether persons are
‘similarly situated for purposes of the law challenged.’ [Citation.]” (In re
Lemanuel C. (2007) 41 Cal.4th 33, 47.) A statute does not violate equal protection
when it recognizes real distinctions that are pertinent to the law’s legitimate aims.
(E.g., People v. Smith (2007) 40 Cal.4th 483, 527; Cooley v. Superior Court
(2002) 29 Cal.4th 228, 253; Coleman v. Department of Personnel Administration
(1991) 52 Cal.3d 1102, 1125; Purdy & Fitzpatrick v. State of California (1969)
71 Cal.2d 566, 578; see Cleburne, supra, 473 U.S. 432, 441.) In such cases,
judicial deference to legislative choices is consistent with “our respect for the
separation of powers.” (Cleburne, supra, at p. 441.)

Though the majority insists otherwise (see maj. opn., ante, at p. 83, fn. 54),
I agree with Justice Corrigan that same-sex couples and opposite-sex couples are
not similarly situated with respect to the valid purposes of Family Code sections
300 and 308.5. As Justice Corrigan indicates, the state has a legitimate interest in
enforcing the express legislative and popular will that the traditional definition of
marriage be preserved. Same-sex and opposite-sex couples cannot be similarly
situated for that limited purpose, precisely because the traditional definition of
marriage is a union of partners of the opposite sex.

Of course, statutory classifications do not serve legitimate state interests
when adopted for their own sake, out of animus toward a disfavored group. (E.g.,
Romer v. Evans (1996) 517 U.S. 620, 633, 634-635 (Romer); U. S. Dept. of
Agriculture v. Moreno (1973) 413 U.S. 528, 534; see Lawrence, supra, 539 U.S.
558, 582-583 (conc. opn. of O’Connor, J.); see also Cleburne, supra, 473 U.S.
432, 441.) Here, however, the majority itself expressly disclaims any suggestion
“that the current marriage provisions were enacted with an invidious intent or
purpose.” (Maj. opn., ante, at p. 119, fn. 73.) I therefore concur fully in Justice
Corrigan’s conclusion that plaintiffs’ equal protection challenge fails for this
reason alone.

I also disagree with the majority’s premise that, by assigning different
labels to same-sex and opposite-sex legal unions, the state discriminates directly
on the basis of sexual orientation. The marriage statutes are facially neutral on
that subject. They allow all persons, whether homosexual or heterosexual, to enter
into the relationship called marriage, and they do not, by their terms, prohibit any
two persons from marrying each other on the ground that one or both of the
partners is gay. (Cf. Perez, supra, 32 Cal.2d 711, 712-713 [statutes prohibited
marriage between certain partners on the basis of their respective races].)

The marriage statutes may have a disparate impact on gay and lesbian
individuals, insofar as these laws prevent such persons from marrying, by that
name, the partners they would actually choose. But, as we explained in Baluyut v.
Superior Court (1996) 12 Cal.4th 826, a facially neutral statute that merely has a
disparate effect on a particular class of persons does not violate equal protection
absent a showing the law was adopted for a discriminatory purpose. In this regard,
discriminatory purpose “ ‘implies more than intent as volition or intent as
awareness of consequences. See United Jewish Organizations v. Carey [(1977)]
430 U.S. 144, 179 (concurring opinion). It implies that the decisionmaker . . .
selected or reaffirmed a particular course of action at least in part “because of,”
not merely “in spite of,” its adverse effects upon an identifiable group.’
(Personnel Administrator of Mass. v. Feeney [(1979)] 442 U.S. [256,] 279.)”
(Baluyut, supra, at p. 837.)

There is no evidence that when the Legislature adopted Family Code
section 300, and the People adopted Family Code section 308.5, they did so
“ ‘ “because of” ’ ” its consequent adverse effect on gays and lesbians as a group.
On the contrary, it appears the legislation was simply intended to maintain an ageold
understanding of the meaning of marriage. Indeed, California’s adoption of
pioneering legislation that grants gay and lesbian couples all the substantive
incidents of marriage further dispels the notion that an invidious intent lurks in our
statutory scheme. As indicated above, the majority itself expressly disclaims any
suggestion that the laws defining marriage were passed for the purpose of
discrimination. For this reason as well, I believe our equal protection analysis
need go no further.

Even if the distinction were subject to further examination under the equal
protection clause, I disagree that strict scrutiny is the applicable standard of
review. This is because I do not agree with the majority’s decision to hold, under
current circumstances, that sexual orientation is a suspect classification.
The United States Supreme Court has never declared, for federal
constitutional purposes, that a classification based on sexual orientation is entitled
to any form of scrutiny beyond rational basis review. (See Cleburne, supra,
473 U.S. 432, 440-441 [recognizing race, alienage, and national origin as suspect
classifications requiring strict scrutiny review, and gender and illegitimacy as
quasi-suspect classifications requiring “somewhat heightened” review].)11
Moreover, as the majority concedes, its conclusion that sexual orientation is a
suspect classification subject to strict scrutiny contravenes “the great majority of
out-of-state decisions” — indeed, all but one of those cited by the majority. (Maj.
opn., ante, at p. 95, & fn. 60.)12

As the majority also notes, the issue is one of first impression in California.
I find that circumstance highly significant. Considering the current status of gays
and lesbians as citizens of 21st-century California, the majority fails to persuade
me we should now hold that they qualify, under our state Constitution, for the
extraordinary protection accorded to suspect classes.

The concept that certain identifiable groups are entitled to extra protection
under the equal protection clause stems, most basically, from the premise that
because these groups are unpopular minorities, or otherwise share a history of
insularity, persecution, and discrimination, and are politically powerless, they are
especially susceptible to continuing abuse by the majority. Laws that single out
groups in this category for different treatment are presumed to “reflect prejudice
and antipathy — a view that those in the burdened class are not as worthy or
deserving as others. For these reasons, and because such discrimination is
unlikely to be soon rectified by legislative means,” the deference normally
accorded to legislative choices does not apply. (Cleburne, supra, 473 U.S. 432,
440, italics added; see also San Antonio School District v. Rodriguez (1973)
411 U.S. 1, 28 [noting relevance, for purposes of identification as suspect class,
that group “is relegated to such a position of political powerlessness as to
command extraordinary protection from the majoritarian political process”].)

Recognizing that the need for special constitutional protection arises from
the political impotence of an insular and disfavored group, several courts holding
that sexual orientation is not a suspect class have focused particularly on a
determination that, in contemporary times at least, the gay and lesbian community
does not lack political power. (High Tech Gays, supra, 895 F.2d 563, 574;
Conaway v. Deane, supra, 932 A.2d 571, 609-614 [same-sex marriage];
Andersen v. State, supra, 138 P.3d 963, 974-975 [same].)

In California, the political emergence of the gay and lesbian community is
particularly apparent. In this state, the progress achieved through democratic
means — progress described in detail by the majority — demonstrates that,
despite undeniable past injustice and discrimination, this group now “ ‘is
obviously able to wield political power in defense of its interests.’ ” (Maj. opn.,
ante, at p. 98, quoting the Attorney General’s brief.).

Nor are these gains so fragile and fortuitous as to require extraordinary state
constitutional protection. On the contrary, the majority itself declares that recent
decades have seen “a fundamental and dramatic transformation in this state’s
understanding and legal treatment of gay individuals and gay couples” (maj. opn.,
ante, at p. 67), whereby “California has repudiated past practices and policies that
denigrated the general character and morals of gay individuals” and now
recognizes homosexuality as “simply one of the numerous variables of our
common and diverse humanity” (ibid.). Under these circumstances, I submit, gays
and lesbians in this state currently lack the insularity, unpopularity, and
consequent political vulnerability upon which the notion of suspect classifications
is founded.

The majority insists that a determination whether a historically disfavored
group is a suspect class should not depend on the group’s current political power.
Otherwise, the majority posits, “it would be impossible to justify the numerous
decisions that continue to treat sex, race, and religion as suspect classes.” (Maj.
opn., ante, at p. 99. fn. omitted.)

I do not quarrel with those decisions. At the times suspect-class status was
first assigned to race, and in California to sex and religion, there were ample
grounds for doing so. They may well still exist in some or all of those cases.
Moreover, I do not suggest that once a group is properly found in need of
extraordinary protection, it should later be “declassified” when circumstances
change.

I only propose that, when, as here, the issue is before us as a matter of first
impression, we cannot ignore current reality. In such a case, we should consider
whether, despite a history of discrimination, a particular group remains so
unpopular, disfavored, and susceptible to majoritarian abuse that suspect-class
status is necessary to safeguard its rights. I would not draw that conclusion here.
Accordingly, I would apply the normal rational basis test to determine
whether, by granting same-sex couples all the substantive rights and benefits of
marriage, but reserving the marriage label for opposite-sex unions, California’s
laws violate the equal protection guarantee of the state Constitution. By that
standard, I find ample grounds for the balance currently struck on this issue by
both the Legislature and the People.

First, it is certainly reasonable for the Legislature, having granted same-sex
couples all substantive marital rights within its power, to assign those rights a
name other than marriage. After all, an initiative statute adopted by a 61.4 percent
popular vote, and constitutionally immune from repeal by the Legislature, defines
marriage as a union of partners of the opposite sex.

Moreover, in light of the provisions of federal law that, for purposes of
federal benefits, limit the definition of marriage to opposite-sex couples (1 U.S.C.
§ 7), California must distinguish same-sex from opposite-sex couples in
administering the numerous federal-state programs that are governed by federal
law. A separate nomenclature applicable to the family relationship of same-sex
couples undoubtedly facilitates the administration of such programs.

Most fundamentally, the People themselves cannot be considered irrational
in deciding, for the time being, that the fundamental definition of marriage, as it
has universally existed until very recently, should be preserved. As the New
Jersey Supreme Court observed, “We cannot escape the reality that the shared
societal meaning of marriage — passed down through the common law into our
statutory law — has always been the union of a man and a woman. To alter that
meaning would render a profound change in the public consciousness of a social
institution of ancient origin.” (Lewis v. Harris, supra, 908 A.2d 196, 922.)

If such a profound change in this ancient social institution is to occur, the
People and their representatives, who represent the public conscience, should have
the right, and the responsibility, to control the pace of that change through the
democratic process. Family Code sections 300 and 308.5 serve this salutary
purpose. The majority’s decision erroneously usurps it.

For all these reasons, I would affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeal.

BAXTER, J.

I CONCUR:

CHIN, J.

     What makes America great is this; When Christianity goes astray, predominantly Christians in a democracy correct that church, that faith.  This is not the case in Islam in a theocracy.  It is up to predominantly Christians from democracies that correct Islamic, or Nazi, or Communist, or Christian or whatever banner evil pops its head up from under.  This is why America is great, this is why we honor Israel, Australia, and the U.K. and whoever chips into the fight against evil.  These are countries who self correct their own evils and face the threats evil perpetrates on others.  Imperialism charges against these free countries is not only false, it is astoundingly ignorant of history, even recent history to equate honorable people, nations, and religions with those who wreak havoc on the rest of the world.  It is profoundly arrogant and hypocritical for half of the free world to condemn these nations for our actions with military force to bring peace to their own regions and to answer attacks on their nations with overwhelming force.  The moral compass of anyone who equates our actions with those of people who attack innocent citizens using 14 year old children to carry bomb belts into our midst and blow themselves up in the hope of killing as many innocents as possible, has to be 180* out or missing altogether.  To compare Abu Graib or Guantanamo to people who saw off heads, who use piano wire to slice off the faces of children, to excuse any action on the basis of the desperation of the enemy is to lack reason and common sense.

     Dispatches is an English version of a video news magazine similar to 20/20.  These videos are one complete program revealing what is taught in many Muslim Mosques.  It is well worth watching all six of these videos.  As you watch them, keep in mind that the same funding and source of promotional material is being sent around the world, including to the mosques in the United States.  The same brand of Islam is paid for and promoted by the same people who are supporting these mosques in England.  No under cover operation has come to light on the U.S. mosques but they are sourced the same as those in England and around the world.  I cannot re-iterate this enough.  This is what is being taught inside mosques right here in the United States today.

There are those who mouth the customary words, some who disparage the troops while claiming to support them, some who hate our military and make no bones about it, and then there are those who make a difference in the lives of those who pay so dearly for our peace and safety.  Denzel Washington first decided to make a difference by showing up to this recovery center and letting some men and women who've sacrificed greatly that he thinks enough of them to want to meet them in person.  Second, when he saw a need, without hesitation he took action to help correct that need.  Both are examples of what each one of us need to be doing for our troops, both overseas, and at home.  They deserve nothing less and, I believe, a whole lot more.  Look into what's going on in your neck of the woods with regards to ministering to our brave troops.  If there is nothing local, make something local.  Some of the biggest charities for our troops were started because some soldier's mom or sister wanted to send stuff they miss, stuff they need, stuff that just smells like home.  If neither of these is an option, find someone else's program and help them do what they know to do.  A single person can make a big difference in one soldier's life.  A few people can change the way a lot of soldiers feel about their work.  A lot of people can make them all proud of their accomplishments and sacrifices.

The man wasn't looking for self promotion.  He certainly doesn't need it.  He was there to bless the troops, and he did.  They want to make known what he did.  They want to honor him for his efforts to honor them.  He could have made a big deal out of it.  With a single phone call, the media would have been all over the story.  That's not why he was there, and that's what made the visit, and his actions feel so sincere.