-
SEQUESTER: The Horror!
March 1, 2013 | 4 comments
-
SOTU Preview: Human Props, Budget Fights, and Wedge Issues
February 12, 2013 | 0 comments
-
Hello, I Must Be Going
August 14, 2012 | 18 comments
-
Weekend Political Wrap-Up, Paul Ryan Edition
August 12, 2012 | 16 comments
-
Esquire Blogger Sees Paul Ryan, Shreds His Safety Net
August 11, 2012 | 13 comments
The Spectacle Blog
The Proposition 8 decision is really breathtaking in its arrogance. The state did offer a rational basis for traditional marriage. Judge Walker may not find the arguments for defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman persuasive, but that does not mean those arguments do not exist. The role of a legislator and a judge are different.
This Wall Street Journal blog post lists some of the policy arguments Walker makes against Proposition 8, almost all of them debatable. The difference is that Walker is using raw judicial power to impose his policy preferences on 52 percent of Californians who voted for Prop 8.
Marriage has always been between one man and one woman because that is the combination required to naturally produce a child. If that definition no longer suits the needs of our society, let’s have a debate about that. But let’s not have someone who has clearly taken a side in this debate decide its outcome for the rest of us.
View all comments (51) | Leave a comment
More Blog Posts by W. James Antle, III
http://spectator.org/blog/2010/08/04/parts-of-your-constitution-are
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- What’s in a Name?
- Downton’s Class System — and Ours
- The Vast and the Tiny
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Teflon93| 8.4.10 @ 7:36PM
Is the perjorative necessary?
This is usually a sure sign of a liberal plant.
Don H| 8.4.10 @ 10:33PM
... or a closet case.
Charm| 8.4.10 @ 7:31PM
And this judge was a Bush appointee. Could we please get some conservatives in the Republican party.
Adam McCoy| 8.6.10 @ 12:52AM
I thought he was a Reagan appointee? Doesn't change the sentiment...
Tim*| 8.4.10 @ 8:01PM
The Federal Government is provoking Rebellion .
The Tea Party Rebellion Escaltes .
Real Change In November
Garcia-Von| 8.4.10 @ 8:10PM
The state wasn't in this fight. If you paid attention, you would have noticed that the CA governor and its attorney general withdrew from the case. The "proponents" of Prop 8 were a private group.
Also, if you are saying that all heterosexual judges would be fair, while all homosexual judges would not, you're as biased as they come.
tonypal| 8.4.10 @ 11:23PM
This is a pretty simple exercise. There's a vastly higher percentage of homosexuals who are in favor of gay marriage than heterosexuals who oppose gay marriage. Based on that, I would venture a guess that the odds of a gay judge ruling against a right to gay marriage are impossible to calculate using standard math.
George S| 8.4.10 @ 8:59PM
The problem is federal judges agreeing (or can't wait) to review cases that have no basis in federal law and therefore becoming an appeal to a one man super-legislature. The 14th Amendment was written specifically because SCOTUS once ruled that a black man has no rights a white man need respect. Therefore the application of the equal protection of laws meant blacks were to be treated without prejudice. To extend this to a yet as defined right or rights associated with marriage is soft-headed thinking devoid of any knowledge of history. How does the law square with the fact that the Catholic Church will not sanction the marriage of a divorced person? Or the Mormon tradition of polygamy? It cannot, for the Constitution leaves these issues to the people.
Our government exists only because we the people have given up part of ourselves (our liberties) in exchange to be consented to be governed. Since the government is part of us, it is comprised of our morals and principles and religion is the vehicle that brings them forth into society. Therefore the government is comprised of these principles. That's why it is good public policy to promote marriage and reward it with tax breaks and other privileges. If our values shun homosexuality, then so does our government. But that does not mean that government cannot confer benefits to cohabiting couples if the people do not object. But to call it a violation of rights infers that people who are not married are denied those same rights. For what if they are not single by choice? See how this opens a can of worm?
hmm_contrib| 8.4.10 @ 9:20PM
George - you're conflating religious marriage with civil. Walker was quite clear in pointing out that a) the two are separate and b) actions taken by the government won't and would never affect religious decisions. So all of your fear-mongering about implications for religions is utter nonsense. No church would ever be forced to recognize anything it didn't want to. Not that any gay group or individual has ever tried, anyway; that little bit of hysterical agitprop was created by the right in the first place. This is about the government issuing a license and whether it's doing so in a constitutionally-permissible discriminatory manner or not. Walker found that it wasn't.
Your breath-taking "If our values shun homosexuality, then so does our government " would be no different if you said "If our values shun black-white mingling, then so does our government" or "If our values shun Islam, then so does our government." Would all actions flowing from your embrace of shunning be permitted, regardless of the target, Constitution be damned? Fortunately, the Constitution is to there to protect the rights of the minority from the tyranny of the majority. What with all the screaming about respecting the Constitution from the right these days, you'd think that would matter more.
Antle, since this was a federal suit, the question as to whether part of the CA Constitution was inconsistent with the US Constitution is pretty apt, not that that stopped you from trying to confuse your readers.
Last - Teflon, you don't read much Free Republic, do you? Are they all liberal plants there, too? Especially the one who posted on this issue today with "There is a solution" with a picture of a very large gun?
Paul McGrath| 8.4.10 @ 10:25PM
This gets so tiresome. The basic argument against gay marriage is that the union of two gay people can not produce children. Society doesn't mind if two gay people raise children and it doesn't want to prohibit them doing so. It does, however, want to promote those relationships that might produce children, whether those relationships produce children or not. This is the whole point of the so-called marriage benefit: it is there to give some help to those married couples that might have a kid.
GAY PARENTS CAN NOT HAVE A KID. They can't. And we are being told that we must confer special status on these relationships?
And where, in any constitution, is the word marriage mentioned? Please, someone, enlighten me on this. All states have rules regarding marriage. A brother can't marry a sister. In some states, a first cousin may not marry a cousin. All states regulate the marriage of minors, to certain degrees.
And now it's unconstitutional that two men can't get married?
I think I'm going to lose my mind.
Annie| 8.4.10 @ 10:42PM
Apparently you already have.
BC| 8.5.10 @ 8:16AM
Stay classy Annie, stay classy.
Richard Ong| 8.5.10 @ 3:00PM
Apparently you don't have a substantive point.
tonypal| 8.4.10 @ 11:09PM
I don't have the energy right now to deal with everything you posted, so I'll just stick with one thing. Whether or not you believe in the right to gay marriage - for the record, I do not - this is simply not a federal issue. If this so-called judge really believed in the Constitution and the doctrine of enumerated powers, the case never would have been heard in federal court. But as Congressman Stark from California has confirmed for us in the last few days, the federal government has the power to do whatever it wants.
He might also have looked at the Constitution and considered the whole idea of a "right" to gay marriage preposterous on its face. There is simply no right that a hererosexual possesses that a homosexual does not. There is no specific right to marriage possessed by heterosexuals. Marriage is an offshoot of our 1st amendment right to religious freedom, but your particular religious faith can deny you the ability to be married as a member of that faith. For the government to say someone has a fundamental right to marry, they would have to overcome that pesky first amendment guarantee of religious freedom.
In addition, a fundamental right does not exist if the government on any level can place limits on the activity. For example, many states require a marriage license. No such license exists to practice your 1st amendment rights. That requirement exists for heterosexuals wishing to marry. It would be a real stretch to say such a requirement could withstand strict scrutiny, which would be the applicable standard if a right to marriage for heterosexuals existed.
The real problem is unelected judges usurping the legislative process and creating fundamental rights out of thin air. We've seen the results of this approach since Roe v. Wade. Nearly 40 years later, the battle rages on, mainly due to the fact that a vast number of people in this country simply reject that the notion that a bunch of law school graduates should dictate policy. Abortion was being battled out on the state level, where it belongs. Had the process been allowed to continue, you would have settled abortion laws in all 50 states. While a pro-lifer like myself might not be pleased with the decision my particular state would make, I know that by simply exercising my right to vote, things could be changed through my state's legislative process.
So what we are left with instead is a fierce debate that has no end in sight. You can talk about any issue, but the one issue that causes more anger than any other is abortion. However, I predict that will soon be overtaken by gay marriage. I also predict that this decision will have profound consequences for years to come at the polls. At some point, a serious push will be made to amend the Constitution so as to define marriage as between a man and woman. This is a consistent winner nationwide for republicans. In the end, the proponents of gay marriage may regret today's decision.
George S| 8.4.10 @ 10:31PM
Sorry, but you're not pulling your thoughts together to make a point. What is the difference between a civil and religious marriage? What rights, protected by the Constitution, are being denied to unmarried homosexuals? Why aren't those same rights applicable to non-married heterosexuals?
What I am trying to fear monger is which came first: the institution of marriage, the Constitution or the federal government? Marriage is a religious concept that orders a civilized society and predates most governments. It establishes the basis of every civilization -- the hierarchy of the family structure -- that separates us from the animals. This institution was carried through and recognized and promoted by almost every government in history, for government cannot hold together the uncivilized. When we incorporated the federal government by writing the Constitution (that is, We the People, not We the Judges or We the Congress) we expected to carry forth our traditions without having to explicitly write them down in case someone in the future disagreed. We expected these traditions to be self-evident. In my view, the belief is that without marriage -- or by marriage being trivialized -- society unravels. You believe that homosexual marriage does not trivialize marriage and therefore starts to tear the social fabric. I do. So how do we settle the argument? We debate it and let the people decide. Not a federal judge, not a talk show host, not a computer randomly generating numbers. That's what the Constitution proscribes (absent the enumeration of rights being denied to single people).
And there are other actions which the state has a compelling interest and denies the individual marriage. For example, a 40 year-old man who wants to marry a 12-year-old girl. Multiple wives or husbands. Brother marrying sister. Why? Because they promote unrest... and that unrest threatens ordered liberty. As does homosexual marriage.
So civil and religious marriage does not differ, no matter what a lone law school graduate with political connections thinks. They both promote social cohesion, with civil ceremonies being for those without the religious sympathies. It all comes down to how we define a family that lives together and shores up society. I don't think homosexual marriage promotes that. And a lot of African Americans -- the ones with real skin in the civil rights game -- agree with me.
Annie| 8.5.10 @ 2:07AM
Homosexual marriage causes unrest? Really? Do you have examples of massive unrest, say from Iowa or Massachusetts? Other than the temporary unrest caused by the actual fight to legalize gay marriage, that is. Massachusetts has one of the lowest divorce rates in the country, so I guess that "tearing at the fabric of society" argument is based on empty fear-mongering.
Let's say California does start marrying gay people again. Or heck, let's even go back to the 18,000 gay couples who are already married in CA. They were all gay before they got married. Still gay afterward. Most are likely living in the same places they lived before they married, very likely next door to straight people who may or may not know they have gay neighbors.
I haven't heard of the gay population doubling there, or anything. No massive quadrupling of numbers of high school kids coming out to their parents. No reports of outbreaks of multiple gay orgies. And it's very likely that those gay couples who hold hands in public now were doing so before they got married. Probably still going to the same places they went before marriage. And the same jobs. Haven' heard of any massive population shift as a result.
So here's what happens when you legalize gay marriage: Some -- not all -- but some, gay couples who are already living their lives as couples and some of which are already raising children together, will get married. And the only thing that changes is they are now married and it is no longer so hard for them to legally and financially do the things they need to do to be the committed couple they already are, or care for and protect their families.
How does that harm anyone? How does that change anything in your world? How can a stable, loving relationship do anything but bolster the fabric of society?
How does gay marriage so badly rock your world? Denying gay people the right to marry is not going to make all the gay people disappear or change our fundamental daily routines. We'll still be here.
I come back to what I said elsewhere here. Isn't it really about not wanting to have to deal with the existence of gay people, based upon your own prejudice? Isn't it really some irrational idea that if you deny gay people the right to marry, that they will somehow slink back into the closet and you won't have to face the fact that we are here? And doesn't that come back to you simply not wanting someone different from you to have the same rights as you?
What do you expect to accomplish by disallowing gay marriage? Other than being able to feel you have the "moral" upper hand and have "put us in our place?" Because you will not be able to stamp us out of existence just by denying us the right to marry.
Christians cry out that gay people are "immoral" and "ungodly." But Buddhists, Muslims, Jewish people, Atheists, and Hindus also don't believe the same things that Christians do. There are all kinds of straight couples doing all kinds of sexual things that go against Christian teachings. Are you against all of their marriages as well?
As a side note, citing pedophilia is ridiculous. That does harm someone - the child in question. Gay marriage causes harm to no one - the adults involved are consenting adults, and were consenting adults when they became a couple, before they got married.
George S| 8.5.10 @ 2:47AM
Excellent argument and on point. But nothing in your argument rests on legal principles, instead it is 100 percent public policy oriented. And that, per our Constitution, belongs in the statehouse -- not the courthouse. You have one opinion, I have another. Tally up the votes and that's how the argument is resolved. If a judge resolves this in my favor, would you walk away satisfied? Hell no, because you have been robbed of your right vote. This is why abortion and school busing and other divisive policies remain at fever pitch. Because a judge decides. Who the hell made them king? That is the crux of my argument -- the rule law NOT the rule of man.
Annie| 8.4.10 @ 10:55PM
"Marriage has always been between one man and one woman because that is the combination required to naturally produce a child."
Actually marriage was originally a business arrangement between two families. At that time, the woman being "given" in marriage was part of the property bargained for - as she was transferred from her father's possession to her husband's. That tradition obviously has changed in most of modern society.
Until you agree that a marriages between men and women in which it is determined they will physically never be able to produce children should be annulled, your argument holds no water. While marriage is no longer an exchange of property between families, it is still very much a legal contract that provides for certain legal rights and responsibilities between the people who enter into the contract. I don't recall any vow of procreation being part of a requirement for marriage.
Why two consenting adults of the same gender pledging love, monogamy and fulfillment of a marriage contract harms marriage between a man and a woman is a mystery to me. And no matter how many times I ask, the answer I always get still comes back to "because I don't want gays to have what I can have! Wha, wha, wha!"
Admit it's about hatred, because that's what it amounts to.
tonypal| 8.4.10 @ 11:20PM
Annie, at least some of the other people posting here in favor of gay marriage have made reasoned, intellectual arguments. Your post is the product of a weak, insecure mind.
First off, what little reasoning you attempt is self-defeating. You make an argument that marriage is a purely contractual agreement, which is actually the definition of a civil union. Homosexual couples enter into such unions every day, so apparently they're not really being denied any rights, if we go by your definition of marriage.
After that, your post just devolves into a childish rant. We all know that nobody responds to you as you describe. You could only wish they did; then you would be dealing with someone on your level. You simply cannot tolerate anyone disagreeing with you, which is why it always comes back to political disagreements being about hatred on the part of those having a different point of view. Go back and read my post up above. It's rather lengthy, but take a look at what I wrote and see if you can find the words "Wha, wha, wha!"
Annie| 8.5.10 @ 12:23AM
I did read your post and all the others before I posted mine. Yes, lots of big words and pseudo-intellectual BS that if paraphrased, reads as "wha, wha, wha, gays are different from me and shouldn't be allowed to use 'my' special word." Or perhaps, "wha, wha, wha, the judge won't let me vote to deny rights to other people." So whose really childish, hmmm?
If it walks like hatred and talks like hatred ....
As for marriage being a civil contract, exactly. So if the standard for EVERYONE, gay or straight, is a legal, civil marriage contract with the option of a secondary religious marriage ceremony for those who want it, that would be fine. But having two different standards equates to sending gay people to the back of the bus. That's what this fight is about - equality. Thousands of rights tied to federally-recognized marriage are denied to gay couples.
Your argument that marriage is an offshoot of a right to religious freedom is one of the most ludicrous I've heard. I'm sure thousands of married atheists would agree with me. The word "marriage" is not owned by religion. Our own laws have turned it into a civil, legal contract. Then again, if it is tied to religious freedom, as you say, since some religions in this country do condone gay relationships, then if we do go with your argument, then that is an argument in favor of legalizing gay marriage.
It's only a matter of time until gay marriage is legal at the national level in this country. Loving vs. Virginia is the basis for the argument that the rights of a minority should not be subject to a majority vote. If not for the Supreme Court, there would still be separate drinking fountains in some parts of this country.
I do wish all the people who are so focused on stamping out the rights of other people would focus all that energy on real problems instead of their desire to "sanitize" the country of anything different.
I'm still waiting for a rational, non-religious answer as to how two people of the same gender getting married harms the marriage of of a man and a woman.
tonypal| 8.5.10 @ 8:40AM
To answer your question, it is you who are acting childish. As I predicted, you simply don't have the intellectual capacity to understand a fairly straightforward argument. So you resort to that old liberal standby, which is anyone who disagrees with Annie must be a hater. Again, you reveal your weak mind.
Marriage is not a civil contract, civil unions are civil contracts. That's why we give them different names, marriage vs. civil unions. Under your twisted logic, the first amendment guarantee of religious freedom would be wiped out in favor of a non-existent right to marry. As I stated in my post, no such right exists for heterosexuals. If it wasn't for the obvious fact that you prefer to substitute emotion for rational thought, you would pick up a copy of the Constitution, read through it and discover that there isn't a single word in there about heterosexuals having a fundamental right to marry. But why do that when you can come here to TAS and expose your blinding hatred for anyone who disagrees with you.
No one here seeks to stamp out anyone's rights because we're talking about a right that doesn't exist, except in a San Francisco courtroom run by a homosexual judge who just might have an agenda. As for your last sentence, you will never be satisfied with anything you hear because you're close minded like so many others of your kind. Liberals like yourself preach tolerance and acceptance of differing points of view, but whenever you're given the opportunity to practice what you preach, you expose yourselves as hypocrites. So go ahead and respond so we can see yet a further demonstration of your ignorance and hatred.
Annie| 8.5.10 @ 12:57AM
Oh, and by the way, there are states where homosexuals do not enter into civil unions every day because they aren't legal in those states, and there are other states where civil unions have some, but not all rights granted to married couples. So yes, they are being denied rights. Another reason we need legal marriage for gay people at the national level, so there is no more disparity between states or confusion as to "am I married in Iowa but if I move to Texas, I'm not."
Or the exercise of filing a joint state tax return but separate federal ones, or the worry that if I'm driving through Arkansas with our kids my partner gave birth to, and something happens to my partner, will the state of Arkansas take my kids away from me, because they don't recognize our relationship?
You see, my family with my partner and kids is every bit as much a family as any other family out there, and we deserve the same rights and protections given to those families.
Indiana Alex| 8.5.10 @ 8:24AM
Everybody is protected equally under the law. The states set conditions for marraige, i.e. age, relations, sex, and everybody must abide.
If i suggest i want to marry my cat, the state may deny that, but the law must be followed by everybody.
Just because homosexuals are predisposed not to marry the opposite sex does not mean they are being treated differently under the law. Heteros can't marry the same sex either.
This is not rocket science.
tonypal| 8.5.10 @ 8:55AM
Once again, an absolutely childish argument put forth by a weak mind. There's this concept called federalism, whereby individual states are free to make their own laws. Provided the state law is not pre-empted (if you don't know what that means, why don't you look it up), is not part of the federal government's enumerated powers or, if its part of that state's Constitution, it does not weaken the federal constitutional provision, a state can pretty much do anything with respect to lawmaking.
Please explain to everyone here how we are to have a uniform set of laws for the entire country. How does the federal government go about establishing laws dealing with the every day business affairs of New Jersey, which is where I live. You see, the founding fathers were smarter than even you Annie. They were able to figure out that individual states need to deal with matters over which they had a particular knowledge.
Once more, I challenge you to read the US Constitution and tell us exactly where you find a federal guarantee, or right if you will, to heterosexual marriage. Instead of replying with "well all I could read from your post was wha, wha" and exposing yourself as an intellectual lightweight governed solely by her emotions, make an argument based on the controlling document, the Constitution. Tell us at long last how and where you have identified a fundamental right to hetereosexual marriage. If you can find it, then I think your argument that homosexuals should have the same right might hold some water.
Quartermaster| 8.5.10 @ 6:19PM
Annie is the typical liberal. Nicely washed brain who thinks with her heart.
I have as yet to see any well reasoned argument for homosexuals marrying each other. In reality, it's all about taxes and the advantaged, respected state of marriage that results from a man and woman coming together to establish a home - a nest in which to properly raise children.
Those who think queer marriage does not create unrest had better do a bit of backpedaling and look at Scandinavia. Out of wedlock births are now endemic. From what we have observed here, we know this is corrosive. Divorce is low there because people don't marry. They just shack up and fail to create stable homes in which to raise the increasingly few kids they have.
The leftist reaction to 9/11 and the screaming loonies that can't stand America as it used to be are a direct result of poorly raised children with no confidence in the system that gave them the blessing of being able "think" like an idiot and tear down the very country that yielded the blessings of liberty to them. Annie, and people like her, are so filled with hate for this country they want to see it torn down. The only other possibility is they are the useful idiots of those who truly have a visceral hatred for the US.
So, Annie is either an idiot, or a tool. Take your pick. But, one thing is certain, she certainly hates anyone that would hold her rancid ideology to be the stupidity it is.
Mick Lee| 8.5.10 @ 8:46AM
I don't know anything about the judge. We do know, however, that it doesn't take a judge with a personal axe to grind to render a nakedly liberal opinion.
The judge gave his opinions and what is striking is that he makes a number of determinations on what is "fact" and what would be good policy. This is just the trouble. It is not for the judge to decide heterosexual couples are not the only "best" place to raise children. That gay couples may or may not be just as good as straight couples in raising children is not up to him to evaluate. The point is that the majority of California voters have decided heterosexual marriages are the best for bringing up children. As a free and self-governing people, it is for us to decide how we will order there lives together. Ultimately, it is for the people to decide what marriage is.
Mike| 8.5.10 @ 8:52AM
Mr Antle writes: "The Proposition 8 decision is really breathtaking in its arrogance."
You will forgive me if I judge that David Boies and Ted Olsen know more about constitutional law than does Mr. Antle. The real arrogance is on the right and the left when some of either side rail against court decisions with which they disagree. The arrogant always believe in the absolute truth of their position.
I find it fascinating that the right so vigorously defends constitutional orginalism on the one hand while calling for so many constitutional amendments on the other (i.e.) same sex marriage; birth right citizenship). If the founding fathers got it right once for all time, why the haste to amend the constitution every time a values debate emerges in our society?
tonypal| 8.5.10 @ 9:09AM
We do believe in originalism and remaining true to the text of the Constitution. In other posts, I have tried in vain to explain to Annie that the US Constitution does not even mention the word marriage, let alone provide a fundamental right for heterosexuals to marry. I'll challenge you the same way I challenged her; tell us where such a fundamental right exists.
Perhaps I can help you with your fascination. The US Constitution, as you might be aware, provides for a process by which the Constitution can be amended, as has been done several times over the years. Those of us on the right never have and never will have a problem with amending the Constitution, if it is done the proper way. What we vehemently object to is unelected law school graduates doing an end run around the amendment process, substituting their "wisdom" and ideology for the will of the people the Constitution.
Here's an example of what I'm talking about. A few years ago, the Supreme Court rewrote the 5th amendment "takings clause" in the Kelo decision. Until Kelo, private property could only be taken under the power of eminent domain for a "public use." Now, under the newly rewritten 5th amendment, private property may be taken for a "public purpose." As you can see, this has nothing to do with gay marriage, yet I and other originalists object to this ruling as strongly as we object to yesterday's ruling. In fact, given that property rights are one of the pillars of our society, an unalienable right that is an absolute requisite in a free society, it is certainly arguable that the Kelo decision is even more harmful than what we got yesterday.
So I hope this addresses your fascination. We object to unelected judges usurping the legislative process. We object to unelected judges doing an end run around the amendment process of the Constitution to create rights that were previously non-existent.
Mike| 8.5.10 @ 9:36AM
Property rights are a pillar of our society. Equal application of the law by the federal and by state governments is another.
There is a reason why the founding fathers thought it wise to insulate some judges from the electoral process. They understood well the concept of "the tyranny of the majority." The founding fathers understood that to be truly impartial jurists applying the law equally to all , judges would necessarily be called upon to decide cases in ways the majority would not like.
I don't deny that a case can be made that unelected judges usurp the legislative process. Many believe the Roberts court did exactly that in the United Citizens case. But we must remember that sometimes the legislative process is flawed and the check the Constitution put on that inevitability is the judiciary.
tonypal| 8.5.10 @ 2:07PM
There is no argument to be made that the Robert's court usurped the legislative process in the Citizens United Case. That was one court overturning a bad decision (in my opinion) of another court and telling the unelected officials at the FTC that they do not decide who has what rights under the 1st amendment.
Aside from that, much of what you say is correct. But it doesn't support your position because you completely ignore two of my main points. First, that this is a matter for individual states to decide, since this does not fall under the enumerated powers of the federal government. Marriage has always been controlled on the state level, hence the varying state laws regarding requirements to marry. For example, some states require a marriage license, still others an HIV test. This fact alone should be sufficient evidence that there is no fundamental right to marriage. Remember, rights are unalienable. If its something the government grants you, its something that can be taken away. That hardly qualifies as a right.
My second point is that heterosexuals do not have a fundamental "right" under the US Constitution to marry. It simply doesn't exist. You could spend the rest of your natural life reading over all of our founding documents, including the Constitution, and you will never find anything remotely like a right to marry for heterosexuals.
As for tyranny of the majority, there is an even more pernicious concept, tyranny of the minority. Read the federalist papers and you will find that Madison and Hamilton wrote extensively on the whole idea of judge as unelected legislator. The fastest path to tyranny is to subvert the legislative process to the whims of unelected officials who do not answer to the people. Don't make the mistake in thinking that the purpose of the Constitution is to protect the minority. That's a bogus argument put forth by people whose views are generally far out of the mainstream. It is an extremely dangerous idea that small segments of the population can simply petition a judge who will grant them their desires, even if it runs contrary to the vast majority of the people or the Constitution itself.
One last thing. Today you may think this judge acted appropriately. But some day an unelected judge might declare that a state may take your property for the purpose of commercializing the property in order to expand the tax base. Oh, that's already been done in Kelo. Tyranny of the minority can be such a bitch sometimes, right?
Grzmlyk| 8.5.10 @ 11:55AM
There's also such a thing as the tyranny of the minority, and that's what has so corroded this country over the last century.
This decision perfectly crystallizes that phenomenon, which is an unfortunate byproduct of the forbearance - dare I say tolerance - of the regular Americans who actually make this country work and pay the bills, and who have for too long have ignored the inevitable mission-creep that is the left's chief tactic in its ultimate goal of attaining Absolute Power: Feminism, environmentalism, gay rights, illegal immigration, unionism - all roads lead to the same gulag which has nothing to do with feminism, environmentalism, gay rights, illegal immigration or unionism. It’s about raw, naked POWER. The subjugation of others to your will.
It's time once again for the will of the majority to prevail in matters large and small in this country. Not to subject ourselves to a self-appointed "plutarchy," comprising those who propagandize for the liberal agenda disguised as the mainstream media; those who postulate fatuously and onanistically from within ivory towers or on Web sites; or those who drape themselves in regal imperiousness behind the gerrymandered and insulated walls of power.
By the way, you stated that the arrogant always believe in the absolute truth of their position."
Sounds like you believe in the absolute truth of your position. You are, then, by your own definition, arrogant.
I jest, of course; as befits a moral relativist, I know you and your brethren only apply that to people who don't genuflect before your brilliance - even though the arguments you put forward are all well-rehearsed hoary chestnuts. Your inadvertently hilarious tautology reveals the moral and intellectual bankruptcy of the left, which can be boiled down to this: Two sets of rules, serfs: One for you and another for us.
In other words, you aren't arrogant for being convinced that you are right because you really ARE right.
Right?
Bob Miller| 8.5.10 @ 8:57AM
They will not rest until every perversion known is protected and encouraged by government.
David| 8.5.10 @ 4:28PM
That is how communists take over a country, pervert it, conqure it and then outlaw the perversions they used to do accomplish it.
obama knows what he is doing, he and his crummy buddies.
Derek Leaberry| 8.5.10 @ 11:03AM
You can either support 10,000 years of civilization, 2000 of which is based on Christianity, or you can throw it in the wastebasket. The Democrats despise civilization, especially the Christian aspects of civilization. Sadly, a substantial minority of "conservatives" also support blowing up civilization and Christian morality.
Jim Hlavac | 8.5.10 @ 11:24AM
You write, "Marriage has always been between one man and one woman because that is the combination required to naturally produce a child."
From what I can gather, neither benefit of clergy or state marriage is required to produce a child.
And from what I can gather, not every marriage produces children.
Ergo, while it is true that children in married mom-pop homes are the ideal, the reality is not all children come from marriage and not all marriages lead to children.
Therefore if you really want to defend marriage and the children it produces, and the sanctity of it, then outlaw divorce, childless marriages, and children out of wedlock.
In the meantime, however faulty this judge's ruling is on his arguments -- the reality is that some small percentage of people are gay, are taxpayers, and are entitled to their First Amendment right to believe in the religion of their choice, which may include gays getting married.
As for those who like to bring up thousands of years of history, true, gay marriage was nowhere to be found -- on the other hand, slavery and woman-as-property and the divine right of kings were well enshrined. So if you want to bring up our long human history, then perhaps you might want to bring back all the glorious things that our long culture has provided. And if by a vote of the public we have brought back slavery, women-as-property and a divine king, oh well, "52% of the people" spoke.
George S| 8.5.10 @ 12:41PM
Jim, I also cringe when people make the procreation argument as the cornerstone to barring gay marriage. But as for the rest... you are smarter than that. You cannot vote to bring back slavery for it violates the Fifth, Ninth, Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments. You cannot vote to use women as property for it violates the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. We cannot vote for a king because that violates Articles I and II of the Constitution. See? The points you make do no sustain your arguments because they clearly violate the Constitution. As far as the First Amendment "... right to believe in the religion of [one's] choice", how is it possible to bar Mormon polygamy under the Constitution? Think about it and the answer to outlawing gay marriage falls into place.
When it's individual against society, the winner has to be the one who sustains the Constitution. Did this judge in CA do that? Would you sacrifice the Constitution in order to pave the way for legally married gays? That is not a false premise question -- it is the very real threat we face. If one judge decides for all of us on issues of public policy, then what's the point of a Constitution?
David| 8.5.10 @ 4:22PM
Why not, that's obama's goal under socialistic/Islam.
David| 8.5.10 @ 4:25PM
"Marriage has always been between one man and one woman "
Why doesn't this prevail as law thru common usage for so long, that has been upheld in other instances, or is that restricted to certain issues?
Margaret| 8.5.10 @ 1:11PM
What is truly amazing is that everyone is overlooking the fact that the Federal government has no right to interfere with what a state does with regard to this issue. The people voted and that is what the law is. No group has a right to overturn the vote of the people. That is the law. If another vote overturns the description of marriage in that state then that becomes the law. This entire court procedure is illegal. Therefore it should be overturned and the state law stands.
Perhaps the judge should return to school to study our constitution.
David| 8.5.10 @ 4:20PM
I believe the judge in this case is gay, so, what did anyone expect? The "gat people" will be in a heap of crap when Shria law eventually prevails......queers are not tolorated by Islam, judge or no judge.
tonypal| 8.5.10 @ 6:40PM
Go back and read my posts if you have the time, as some of them are a bit lengthy. I've been making the same two points over and over, that there is no fundamental right to heterosexual marriage and the federal government has no right to interfere in the affairs of states, except under very limited circumstances.
duck| 8.5.10 @ 1:34PM
Father can marry son, mother can marry daughter, brother can marry brother, sister can marry sister.
Incest you say. Logic says it is not. Incest laws were installed to protect against any children being born with genetic aberrations. Since same sex coupling does not produce offspring even between close relatives, the argument against incest does not apply.
This minority must be protected and their rights must be upheld. Anything less would smack of incestphobia and deny those in this minority their rights as free humans beings.
tonypal| 8.5.10 @ 2:10PM
You forgot about polygamy, which will surely be the next thing to come before the courts. Why can't three people marry if they're in a loving relationship. Who are you to say they can't.
jgo| 8.5.10 @ 2:32PM
The governor is not the state. The legislature is not the state.
duck| 8.5.10 @ 3:21PM
@jgo
Just the contrary.....
The governors and legislators have told you what to eat, what your BMI must be, what vehicles you can and cannot drive, what cooking oils cannot be used, what is to be taught to your children and what will not be taught, what is to be politically correct and what is not, what kind of insurance you are forced to buy, plus a huge list of other can and can't do's and don'ts that if hasn't been legislated, have been decreed buy politicians, bureaucrats, judges and others who want you to live in their likeness.
duck| 8.5.10 @ 3:24PM
For those of you who don't get the pun...."decreed BUY politicians" was on purpose.......
Derek Leaberry| 8.5.10 @ 2:35PM
And what is to keep us from abolishing all marriage laws with minimum ages? With all the Muslims that have immigrated to America in recent times, it could be religious discrimination to have minimum age marriage laws. Why not have five year old brides? An egalitarian-libertarian government can't say no, can it?
King David II| 8.5.10 @ 4:16PM
I think I have finally figured out who the Meek are who will rule the world mentioned in the Bible.
The homosexual world to come will be childless and therefore meek, the Meek are the homosexuals.
The Meek will rule the world!
And they will all die from AIDS!
Adam McCoy| 8.6.10 @ 1:05AM
Why do so many believe they must lie to make their point? James Antle wrote "Marriage has always been between one man and one woman because that is the combination required to naturally produce a child." ...other than polygamy (which was wrong, but still called marriage), christ's marriage to the church, and all of the marriages that occur after divorce, death of a spouse, etc..