26 May 2009

Perhaps it was Jack Black...

...that caused the California Supreme Court to see the folly of their ways...

The California Supreme Court has upheld Proposition 8, which defined the concept of marriage between one man and one woman. Of course it'd be preposterous to assume that this decision would go down smoothly. Almost immediately, the usual crowd is setting their sights on the Mormons, who were just a portion of those who supported Prop 8. None of their vitriol is directed at others who supported Prop 8: blacks, gays, Asians, because it would bring their hypocritical stances to light. How could a liberal, who proclaims to work for the common man, march and target minorities who supported the proposition? Ah, the quandry of being liberal. One of the more odd responses is how Prop 8 is analogous to the Dred Scott decision of 1857, which said that Dred Scott was a slave, no matter where his foot tread. With that in mind, shouldn't opponents of Prop 8 applaud the courts decision? Once gay, always gay? The truth of the matter is, the Dred Scott decision was indeed discriminatory because of ethnicity and not gender.

The court ruled that the marriages that were performed between the judicial fiat in June 2008 to the passage of Prop 8 the following November. Although "gay" rights groups are claiming that the passage strips "rights" away from them, the courts found that the proposition not only was constitutional, but that it did not strip anything from "gay" couples. It appears, according to GayPatriotWest, that the state will continue to recognize "same-sex" couples, but will not call them "married." Basically, the argument is a semantical one, in all the states that passed ballot measures banning "gay" marriage, they still allow civil unions. This ruling is no different, but it seems as those who continue to demonize those who oppose it, want to continue to rely on overheated rhetoric. I have always argued that civil union protections should be strengthened in every state to protect the livelihood gay couples have worked so hard to enjoy.

Though the ruling stated that Prop 8 was an amendment and upheld the 18,000 marriages performed between June and November 2008, one commenter at Human Events argued that this poses another potential problem in that it creates a secondary class of gay citizens. What's that I smell? An argument that the recent ruling violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The federal lawsuit that was filed immediately after the decision sought a preliminary injunction on Prop 8 until the case was settled. Some on the Right are shocked that this lawsuit was filed by former Bushites, Ted Olson, Bush's Solicitor General and David Boies, who has argued several high profile cases, such as United States v. Microsoft and represented former Vice President Al Gore in Bush v. Gore. Ed Morrissey says that if the federal courts choose to take the case, it may invalidate the 18,000 marriages that were performed, since that issue is the point of contention. A greater danger for the plantiffs is if the federal courts punt on the matter and let the amendment stand. Something did tell me in a dream last night that Obama's choice to fill Supreme Court Justice David Souter's vacancy with Sonia Sotomayor, clearly not a "centrist," may give the "gay" marriage proponents what they want (though it should be noted that Sotomayor's decisions on the Appeals Court are often overturned).

It should be noted that more in the electorate support equality for gay couples, but not necessarily "marriage." Even President Obama opposes "gay" marriage, but he has taken the conservative view that states should decide the matter for themselves. The "jury's still out" on whether Sotomayor or any other federal jurist agrees with him. At least some in the anti-Prop 8 have finally learned their lesson...take the victories where they come.

Have a great day...

No comments:

Post a Comment