Information Alert: California Values

Victoria Cobb, President
Thursday, May 15, 2008

In 2000, an overwhelming majority of California voters favored Proposition 22, a Defense of Marriage Act. Since that ballot initiative passed, politicians in California have worked feverishly to bypass the will of the people to bring same-sex marriage to the Sunshine State.

Today, the Supreme Court of California granted their wish in a sweeping decision that invalidates that state's ban on same-sex marriage and lays the foundation for same-sex marriage advocates to redefine marriage state-by-state. In an opinion that reads more like an Equality Virginia press release than a legal document, the majority of the court argued that there is a fundamental right to "form a family relationship" regardless of one's "sexual orientation." In fact, they do not appear to put any parameters on what exactly a "family relationship" is, perhaps leaving that open to any of an assortment of behaviors.

The court argued that there is no difference between the "domestic partnerships" that the California legislature created, which grant all the rights and benefits of marriage, and marriage itself. (On that point we actually agree and argued during the marriage amendment campaign two years ago.) Ultimately, the court reasoned that it is unconstitutional for the state to deny the use of the word "marriage" to same-sex couples since they already enjoy all the rights and benefits of marriage through so-called "domestic partnerships." Such discrimination, the court said, could encourage same-sex couples to be treated as "second-class citizens" and deny them the "dignity" of the more "familiar and highly favored designation of marriage."

As I told the media in a written press statement, today's decision of that Court to deny the right of children to have both a mother and a father is appalling. It is not surprising, however, that the court found no difference between so-called "domestic partnerships" allowed by California and marriage itself. Regardless of what they are called - domestic partnerships, civil unions, or some other arrangement - any union that is given the rights and benefits of marriage is marriage, and undermines that institution. By determining that there is no difference between a so-called "domestic partnership" and marriage the California Supreme Court validated what supporters of Virginia's marriage amendment said all along - we must have a Constitutional amendment that defines marriage and protects Virginia from another state's version of marriage whatever they decide to call it.

The people of Virginia in 2006 voted overwhelmingly to protect the definition of marriage for days such as this. Like California, our laws protecting marriage were at the mercy of the courts until Virginians were given the opportunity to amend the state Constitution to define marriage. Because of that vote a handful of judges should not be able to toss aside thousands of years of human history and the evidence of social science that marriage between one man and one woman is best for society, families and children.

Regardless of the insanity of California's courts, the law in Virginia is perfectly clear - we recognize that marriage is the union of one man and one woman, and that children deserve both a mom and a dad.