Friday, August 06, 2010

A Little Bit on the Proposition 8 Ruling

Two thoughts on the California judge striking down the constitutional ammendment banning same sex marriages.
  1. Any society that doesn't know where babies come from and doesn't make the creation and nurturing of babies separate, distinct and privileged from not doing so is not a serious one. I'm sure it's jolly good fun and all, but anal sex does not produce babies.

  2. Any constitutional republic that allows a single individual to override the lawfully enacted will of the people is not serious about being a republic. This is lawlessness, plain and simple. It's a judge banging his spoon on his high chair until he gets his treats.
Elsewhere across the Feline Theocracy, there are other reactions. Our Monastery of Miscellaneous Musings is dismayed.
A FaceBook friend playfully chided on her wall that we all needed to get over our homophobia now that a federal judge struck down Prop. 8 .

Because supporters of gay marriage wanted so badly for this to be about homophobia, they got exactly what they wanted and as a result this whole ordeal became about intimidation, smearing and undemocratic end-arounds...

Previous to this, we had felt that were we ever invited to a same-sex wedding, we would be honored to attend because it was not about us nor how we felt about same-sex marriage but about the happy couple. However, because of the undemocratic and thuggish nature of how this whole thing played out, the results are completely illegitimate in our mind and we now feel we could not attend such an event in good conscious.

Again, Congrats. Hope it was all worth it.
Our Archbishop of Texas is for same sex marriage, but against the means by which it was done.
So, for now, the ban has been lifted for California, I think. Right results, I think... but wrong mechanism and route to get there, because if a judge can throw this stuff out, another judge can just uphold it... or strike that decision down... and it's now judges vs. judges, out of the reach of the people and the legislators
Is this another case of slacker fascism?


Anonymous said...

Heterosexual couples may choose not to have children. Should this be illegal?

Sterile couples are unable to have children. Should this be illegal?

Couples who marry past menopause are unable to have children. Should this be illegal?

Not to be lewd, but heterosexual couples are just as capable of having anal sex as homosexual ones. Should this be illegal?

And when is it ever justified for a majority to be able to vote to strip the rights of a minority?

tim eisele said...

Hrm. It seems to me that when you write:

"Any constitutional republic that allows a single individual to override the lawfully enacted will of the people is not serious about being a republic"

this amounts to an argument that the whole concept of Judicial Review is invalid. I would hope that's not what you mean, because without judicial review, I don't see where there is any actual enforcement of the Constitution. If the courts can't find a law unconstitutional, then there is absolutely nothing to stop the legislative and executive branches from ignoring the Constitution altogether. And where is our Republic then?

Whether or not one agrees with the ruling on Proposition 8, I think that the argument that the judge was exceeding his authority leads us to a very dangerous place.

K T Cat said...

"And when is it ever justified for a majority to be able to vote to strip the rights of a minority?"

Isn't homosexual marriage a new right? How can you strip something that didn't exist yet?

K T Cat said...

Tim, I think that a major change in the way a society sees something as fundamental as marriage ought to hinge on more than one judge, particularly when the people voted the other way.

tim eisele said...

Well, it *does* depend on more than one judge. I understand it's already being appealed (I believe the Court of Appeals has nine judges), and if it goes to the Supreme Court then it is nine more, for a total of nineteen judges having a say in the final decision.

It may not be a perfect solution, but there *are* safeguards against "one judge" getting everything his own way.

Anonymous said...

Black rights were once 'new rights', Justice Taney once said they didn't exist either and a majority of the voters agreed. Can 51% of the people vote to enslave 49% under the august title of Republican Democracy?

As for children, are couples past the child rearing age less married? What about gay couples that adopt children? Are they somehow less valid than heterosexuals that adopt?

At the end of the day this is a lost cause for the right. Polls show overwhelming support in younger age groups, eventually it will come about whether by the ballot box or via a 'rights' argument in the judiciary. I'm not clear on why a court challenge is such a shibboleth here, judicial review goes all the way back to Marbury vs Madison; this is going to be reviewed by a *very* conservative Supreme Court.

Just out of curiosity, are you against the court challenges to the health care bill as challenges to our Republican foundation?

K T Cat said...

Tim, it almost sounds like you're suggesting I should have let this post gestate overnight.


Wollf Howlsatmoon said...

I personally could give a rat about gay folks getting married. Enjoy divorce court and spousal support as much as I have instead of just.....leaving.

But, it's not a Right.

I do take umbrage to the fact that an openly gay Federal Judge didn't recuse himself from this case.

Dean said...

Thanks for the link, KT!

Aon said...

My immediate thoughts were pretty much summed up by the first couple of commenters, re fertility testing before marriage and mob rule. I see you've spotted you might have been a bit quick off the mark yourself, KT :)

The only point I guess I can add is why should only us heterosexuals have to suffer? Let 'em get married, you'd be doing God's work.

K T Cat said...


You guys remind me of die-hard Detroit Lions fans late in the Matt Millen era. "Oh, sure, we've been 3-13 or worse for the last 3 seasons, but this one's going to be much better!"

You have no idea what the long-term effects of this will be, but you're taking the word of the people from the last cultural revolution that things will be just fine. "Just fine" as in the total obliteration of the black family and a many-fold increase in black prison population despite a dramatic reduction in racism and a huge increase in social spending.

Oh yeah, this will be great!

Jedi Knight Ivyan said...

I see the push to legalize same-sex marriage as a need for validation. Generally, I don't care what people do in their bedrooms. If you want to hold a commitment ceremony and declare yourselves partners for life, it's your life to do with what you will.

It seems to me that the ones that fight hardest for the title of marriage are covering for insecurity in their lifestyle. They need outside validation to comfort themselves. As a caring person, I'm not going to give that validation. They need to address their insecurity.

Anonymous said...

Dr. Zero has wise words on the subject.

ligneus said...

The Dr. Zero comment was moi! [So as not to confuse with the real anonymous]

K T Cat said...

Thanks for the Dr. Zero link. That was great stuff.

ligneus said...

'There's Nothing Gay About Being Gay'.