Happy marriage in sunny California
May 15, 2008 Lex scripta, O Mores!
CALIFORNIA’S SUPREME COURT STRIKES DOWN the state’s ban on gay marriages. Did it just hand the state to McCain? Well, possibly.
Personally, I favor gay marriage, but I think it would be much better if it were adopted through political, rather than judicial, channels — though I realize that some would call that a distinction without a difference where California is concerned. . . .
I had been saying the same thing on Dean’s World most of last year (and would link to that chain of posts but, alas, there’s not such thing any more on that blog — here’s one ), except the favoring part. The next step, of course, is the proposal in California of a constitutional amendment to reverse this decision (since the Cali court claims to act under constitutional color), and, depending on California’s procedure for making a constitutional change, myriad legal, political and judicial attempts to keep that off the ballot and at all costs prevent the occurrence of democracy … the whole tiring, usual thing that has played out everywhere.
It’s kind of like the revenge of Rose Bird!
May 16th, 2008 at 4:02 pm
I’ve been in the shadows for too long! Now, I can go to California where Fido and I can live without shame!
May 16th, 2008 at 5:18 pm
Two poles and both are positive make charge at either one
So that canceled out are not at ends they’ve just begun,
By court of law the natural is questioned and addressed
And finding better substitute all precedent redressed,
The people finding in their stance the public misaligned
Supremely are they chastened and by judgment reassigned,
The moral of this story is that judges judge the law
You cannot remake culture til you’ve adjudged all the flaws
And who could condemn better than a lawyer’s best defense
That what is best the common good is really just expense?
If everyone’s conformance is that everyone is free
Then liberty’s more geared to whim than cut to be a key,
When positive to positive are said to both attract
Then why do people argue, just let arbiters enact,
If citizens were wiser then as judges they would be
Better to be subjects who are ruled in absentee,
For the wisest who among us understand our true intent
Are noble in their private parts, they do not need assent,
So public do not worry long or fret if all is well
And if this seems quite queer to you then you can go to hell.
May 16th, 2008 at 9:19 pm
The effect seems to be a decoupling of marriage from procreation as a legitimate state interest. If sexual orientation is irrelevant, then creation of children must also be (as well as, one would hope, sex itself). And if that’s the case, then is there anything now stopping me from applying for a marriage license with a friend or a neighbor or a sister or a cousin or a daughter? I could use some benef–er, I mean rights.
Damn it, give me my rights!
May 19th, 2008 at 1:45 pm
“at all costs prevent the occurrence of democracy …”
Democracy come in many forms, my friend, and ballot initiatives are one of the crappiest. In any event, popular will itself has lead to quite undemocratic outcomes (slavery, no voting rights for women, etc.) which is why the Founders chose representation. Ever heard the phrase “tyranny of the majority”?
May 19th, 2008 at 4:02 pm
“Ever heard the phrase “tyranny of the majority”?”
Yeah, it ranks right beside “mutiny of the judiciary.”
November 5th, 2008 at 4:31 pm
[...] me to learn that same-sex marriage is one of its “organizing principles.” But it wouldn’t surprise me to learn that its Supreme Court would say that it [...]