"That the majority of California voters supported Proposition 8 is irrelevant,.."There you have it. High ranking members of the American left have now openly and officially stated that your vote does not count.
If this stands it redefines the United States of America from Constitutional Republic, which we used to be, to a new form of government where the average American is now under the expert care of the self-anointed intelligentsia. Already we have become a bureaucracy, where a select few make the important and (now) personal decisions for society. The final authority has become the judges: the new ruling class.
I believe this particular judge has left himself open to impeachment with his lack of understanding of the law, his inability to leave his personal opinion aside and his personal benefit in his decision's outcome. For the last, a truly honorable judge would have rightly recused himself.
The judge defends his position by stating in his decision that the voters were "irrational" and goes on to cite court cases where a rationality requirement had been determined. But cases he cites on jurisdiction and rationality, do not seem to apply. In one case (Minnesota v Clover Leaf Creamery Co),the court found that that there was no equal protection violation by the state legislature, so that does not support his decision, and in the other (Heller), the court ruling is that the legislature must have a rational basis to create or modify law. The Heller case makes no mention of legislation placed on the ballot by the people. It addresses legislation put on the ballot by the legislature. I submit that in this country, the people are the ultimate authority. Something that seems to escape this judge (and many others).
Setting aside another reworking of American government for a moment, this decision has other points that need to be addressed.
The gay and lesbian community claim that Proposition 8 singles them out for unequal treatment under the law. The plaintiff's contention that Prop 8 prevents homosexuals ...
(1) "from marrying the person of his or her choice."The fact is Prop 8 does not mention homosexuals at all. Additionally, it does not prevent homosexuals from joining in a civil union with another gay person or marrying the person of their choice.
What Proposition 8 does do is prevent the re-defining of the 5000 year old term "marriage" for the purpose of improving the feelings of a minute portion of the population at the expense of the rest of the population's feelings.
Their suit then claims
(2) "The choice of a marriage partner is sheltered by the Fourteenth Amendment"In case anyone is interested, there is no mention of marriage in the US Constitution. This includes the innumerated powers (Section 8), the Bill of Rights, or any of the other 18 amendments to the US Constitution. This lawsuit appears to be an excuse to have the central government manage marriages between individuals: Something the Founders never intended or envisioned and did not include in the US Constitution, nor has it come up in any ratified constitutional amendment. It is not written into federal law with the exception of the Defense of Marriage Act (President Clinton) and some sexist property issues that were resolved in the 19th century.
The US Constitution does not cover marriage, however there are provisions for the states and the people to decide these matters. One is titled the Tenth Amendment to the US Constitution, which gives this power to the states. It reads:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." - Tenth AmendmentAs written, the letter of the law reserves the power to the states and the people. Not the federal government or federal judges.
Many states have addressed the feelings of gay and lesbian Americans. Using their constitutional power, states have codified civil unions into law which include gay and lesbian unions. So what is next?
Number (3) goes off the charts, saying that the state permits civil unions, but that civil unions are not good enough. They are equal but not equal, according to the plaintiffs.
"a status giving same-sex couples the rights and responsibilities of marriage without providing marriage —— does not afford plaintiffs an adequate substitute for marriage and, by disabling plaintiffs from marrying the person of their choice, invidiously discriminates, without justification, against plaintiffs and others who seek to marry a person of the same sex."The question here is; If the civil unions offer the same "rights and responsibilities of marriage" why does it not "afford plaintiffs an adequate substitute for marriage"?
Inquiring minds want to know.
Aren't "rights" the crux of their argument? But in this case the rights are the same., so what is the argument? Why aren't civil unions adequate? Well, the judge's decision includes,
"Cott explained that domestic partnerships cannot substitute for marriage because domestic partnerships do not have the same social and historical meaning as marriage and that much of the value of marriage comes from its social meaning." p.19, ln 4.First: I thought the complaint was that civil unions were not adequate. Now it's domestic partnerships. Is this change of wording to used to redefine the debate or to merely confuse the debate?
This third complaint goes to heart of the problem. It can only be read as, 'According to the activist gay community, equal is not adequate,' so they invidiously discriminate, without justification, and want to redefine marriage for everyone on their own terms. No one else's feelings matter to them. I'm sorry but I do not believe the human race is ready for the open ended redefining of the basic family unit that traditional marriage represents. That the gay and lesbian community needs this kind of government mandated acceptance indicates that there is some other motive involved.
Mr. Cott alludes to the why of it's inadequacy to the gay community. They want the government to force society to award gay and lesbian couples the exact same historical and social meaning that traditional marriage has been over the millennia. I for for one, do not believe it is government's place, nor does government at any level have the ability to proclaim any historical and social standing on any group. And especially the history of marriage where men and women have been marrying each other and producing children. Of course, homosexual couples can never produce children, so the common sense question is "How can it ever be exactly the same?" Common sense would dictate that it cannot, which should make the argument mute.
Gay and lesbian Americans have a need for the government's stamp of approval, their blessing so to speak, of the gay and lesbian lifestyle. I have no insight into this apparent need, but it might be that after millenia of actual and perceived mistreatment by the heterosexual community they have discovered an open ended opportunity to 'even the score'. By redefining marriage at the federal level and making it a stealth "right", they may believe they are winning something.
What I fail to understand is why anyone, or any group, would want their private sex life and their private relationships managed by the bureaucratic central government?