The Coming Dictatorship of Relativism, Part 2
California’s highest court rules that a country club that offers discounts and privileges to spouses of members must do the same for unmarried couples, including same-sex pairings. In a spectacularly … um … interesting quote, the justices say: “A business that extends benefits to spouses it denies to registered domestic partners engages in impermissible marital status discrimination.” But all laws that treat married couples as a class discriminate (that’s kind of their point). And then there’s this:
“The Legislature has made it abundantly clear than an important goal of the Domestic Partner Act is to create substantial legal equality between domestic partners and spouses,” Justice Carlos Moreno wrote for a five-judge majority. “We interpret this language to mean that there shall be no discrimination in the treatment of registered domestic partners and spouses.”
Since California also has a law that defines marriage as the union of a man and a woman, it’s hard how this construal of a domestic-partners law, plus the casual invocation of “marital status discrimination,” doesn’t make California’s marriage-definition law an effective nullity and that the justices have de facto created homosexual “marriage” in everything but name, the M-word. After all, any difference drawn between married couples and domestic partners is, on its face, discrimination — i.e., unequal treatment.
One law professor, Gerald Uelmen of Santa Clara, opined to the LA Times that the case might undermine the homosexual “marriage” case currently before the California justices because it effectively grants to domestic partners all the incidents of marriage, meaning that homosexuals would not be being discriminated against. I wish I had that kind of faith in the neutral application of legal principle. “The gays are the Good Guys” is the real legal principle being upheld here and throughout the Legal Class and their representatives in the Judicial Oligarchy. If someone were to make Uelmen’s argument, it’d be swept aside as “separate is inherently unequal” or with some argument to the effect that this proves the distinction between “married” and “domestic partner” is an irrational classification to begin with and so ordering homosexual “marriage” (the legal name for this doctrine is “Heads I win, tails you lose”).
The cases prove that “liberals are tolerant” is, to use the technical term, a pile of crap. The fantasy that a society can run on “you leave me alone if I leave you alone” is … simply … descriptively inaccurate. False. All societies must have religions (the question being merely “dedicated to which god?”) and what we’re seeing in these unravelings of liberal “tolerance” in re homosexuality is the playing out of this universal truth (if I were a cynic or a conspiratorialist, I would say it always was a bait-and-switch scheme). Liberals have a vision of Good and Evil, a set of morals consequent upon them, and wish to remake all societies in that image, circumstances permitting. And those whose religions are different have to be (varyingly) marginalized, persecuted or (as Bette Midler put it in THE STEPWORD WIVES remake) “re-educated.”
No comments yet.