Activists Are Jeopardizing State’s Finances

Tuesday, February 17, 2004

Page 9

AFFAIRS OF STATE (Column)

Activists Are Jeopardizing State’s Finances

By DAVID KLINE

Last week’s news was dominated by homosexual activists who are trying to alter the traditional definition of marriage. And while the focus naturally was on the legal, social and moral implications, the fiscal implications should not be overlooked.

When the mayor of San Francisco decided to change the city’s marriage license and allow men to marry men and women to marry women, he acknowledged that his goal was to challenge laws that recognize only male-female unions as true marriages.

Clearly, Mayor Gavin Newsom violated his oath of office, since he was openly violating the laws he is sworn to uphold. The city officials responsible for processing and issuing San Francisco’s marriage licenses also violated the public trust when they went along with the mayor’s publicity stunt.

As state Sen. William Knight put it, “You can’t just make up your own laws.” Knight is the Republican who pushed Proposition 22, the successful initiative which created a provision in state law that says, “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.”

Newsom and others who support homosexual marriage oppose Proposition 22, and they got what they wanted last week by prompting lawsuits that will allow the courts to decide the constitutionality of Proposition 22 and other marriage laws.

But what about the cost to taxpayers, the majority of whom would rather have the government spending money on school construction, pothole repair and aid to the poor?

Thanks to the “public servants” in San Francisco, government lawyers at every level soon will be working overtime on cases involving homosexual marriage. The courts, too, will have to expend an untold amount of time and money hearing these cases.

This new spending hits at a time when the state deficit is prompting lawmakers to borrow from the next generation and to suggest such lunacy as freeing prisoners early to save on prisons. Local governments also are in financial trouble, and often complain that police and fire protection will suffer.

Nor are the courts swimming in money. Budget constraints have kept the courts from being able to add enough judges and courtrooms to even come close to keeping up with California’s population growth and litigious behavior. Money is so tight that some courthouses may be closing their doors on certain days this year just to stay afloat.

In this context, is homosexual marriage really so important that we should be redirecting tax dollars for its defense? The 61 percent of California voters who approved Proposition 22 probably don’t think so.

It’s true that proponents of slavery once used a similar argument, lobbying against expanded rights based on economic repercussions. But there’s not much of a comparison. Homosexuals already have full legal rights under the state’s domestic partnership laws, and they aren’t barred from living together or having unofficial wedding ceremonies. It’s difficult to see how a ban on state-sanctioned homosexual marriage violates any inalienable right or has any impact that requires immediate remedy.

With no urgency present, activists should be working within the laws rather than breaking them and setting up the taxpayers to pay for the fallout. Modern America provides rational, appropriate methods to change laws, to elect like-minded representatives and to amend constitutions.

Those who are elected to oversee this effective system of government should be especially eager to work within its parameters rather than going off the deep end with potentially costly abuses of power.

— Capitol News Service