--- Check this out. Interesting.
But part of American law is the principle that unconstitutional laws
are not laws at all. This principle isn't always taken to its logical
conclusion, but generally it is understood to be the principle. As I
understand it, Mayor Newsom's position is that California's
male-female-only marriage law -- which is only a statute, albeit one
that was implemented by a voter initiative -- violates the California
Constitution. If he's right, then refusing to marry same-sex couples
(thus complying with the invalid state statute) would be violating the
law, because it would be denying people the equal treatment that the
constitution allows them; agreeing to marry same-sex couples (thus
violating the invalid state statute) would be upholding the law,
because it would be complying with the constitutional command. His
actions are, I suspect, partly calculated to create a test case that
would lead the California Supreme Court to decide the matter.
I've been watching this whole thing come to a head on CNN. It's
honestly been amazing. Who would have thought someone would actually
stand up and say, hey, we're going to marry gay couples over the long
weekend of court closure to push this argument to the forefront? Not
me, certainly. And certainly not all of the judges who took off for an
early weekend. And for what? What does everyone have their knickers in
a twist over? Something that probably won't be happening by the
beginning of next week---same sex marriages. A marriage, that because
of other laws in place, will not have the full force of the law behind
it. Essentially---an exercise in futility. Everyone, every single
couple that stood in line, knew that their marriage would probably be
declared null and void by some judge, but they wanted to be married
anyway. Good for them. Now, in my opinion, it's a matter of how it
should be resolved which is at issue here, and which will ultimately
cause the most uproar if it comes down to a 9th Circuit or Supreme
Court ruling. The issue itself is clear: how do you define marriage?
Now this is something that the framers could never have ever
thought would be an issue. But while they may not have recognized the
circumstance, they did provide a number of remedies: Congress can pass
a law; they can hand it over to the states to handle; or there can be
judicial review. These are the three ways we as a country choose to
govern ourselves. Legislators have worked on number one and number two:
they've passed laws banning same sex marriages; they've defined
marriage as the legal union between a man and a woman. They've done
everything they could to keep this matter out of the courts because
they learned their lesson with Roe v. Wade. They declared abortion
illegal; the Supreme Court decided differently, and now, thirty some
years later, it's a matter of judicial usurpation and activism that
cheeses Republican congressmen like no other. They claim the issue was taken out of the people's hands!
They had their say; the judiciary reviewed the matter and said they
were wrong; that their laws were unconstitutional. It happens. This is
why we have three branches of government---each fact checks the other.
Sometimes the courts get it right and push things forward. Sometimes
they don't. That's what Congress is for: they're supposed to go back
and rewrite the law if it's declared unconstitutional---so, you know,
they can get it right the second time. Judicial review is one thing
when it's a matter of how government functions. For example, how many
baby steps the FBI can take when they bust a drug dealer. That's an
essential funtion of government---to keep the peace. It's another
matter entirely when you're dealing with social policy---because
everyone has different views on social policy. We're the melting pot,
for chrissakes, of course we're going to have different views on what
is and is not appropriate in the realm of social policy. This is why I don't believe government should be involved in social policy
I mean, honestly, what business does the government have saying what
should be promoted as healthy behavior and what isn't? It's so tiring.
The libertarians, if they were better organized and kicked that freak
Lyndon LaRouche out, could cull some serious support from the GLBT
community. But I digress. Where was I? Oh, social policy. That's right.
Anyway, government should not be in the business of promoting social
policy, but they do anyway. Whomever's in power pushes, like a drug
dealer, their version of what America should be. In my view America
should be a place where people should be able to get married, no matter
if the person they're marrying has the same plumbing as they do. Anyone
who's against this should realize that they're the ones who have
hamstrung themselves on this puppy. When people took the Roe v. Wade
result so seriously, they inadvertently pushed the matter before the
Supreme Court. They're efforts will be paid in spades in the form of
"judicial activism." Because that's where this is headed, kids. Like it
or not. I'm not fond of having the courts come in and decide matters
like this. But Congress is lazy. They pass bad laws. They try and
promote what they see as acceptable social policy. So, when Congress
drops the ball and hamstrings the states from handling it effectively
by trumping them with stupid laws like "The Defense of Marriage Act,"
what exactly does anyone expect the outcome to be? What other remedy is
there? Judicial review is one of the three remedies available: the
other two aren't available. It's up to the third to sort this out. I
never thought I would be a supporter of the idea of gay marriage.
Never. In. My. Life. Why would I, as a married person without kids,
support this idea? Gays and Lesbians had it reasonably good, I thought.
They didn't get screwed on their taxes because they couldn't get
married. And that was as far as I went in the argument. Then I met ML
and The Doctor. They're two lesbians. They had a commitment ceremony
last year. I told everyone they "got married," because in my mind, they
did
get married. They had a minister. The only difference between their
marriage and mine is that they have kids and we don't. I just don't see
the difference anymore and the reason I got over the hump is that I got
my head out of their bedroom. Now, I wasn't thinking about what was
going on behind closed doors, but that's what I figure everyone is so
hung up on: what happens in gay and lesbian bedrooms. Oooh, there's sodomy. That's in the BIBLE as being a bad thing! There's no conception! There are no children. Aiieeeee. .
It's bullshit, to put it simply. What goes on in anyone's bedroom is of
no concern. I'll stay out of your bedroom. You stay out of mine. It's
that simple. But this is not what the anti-gay marriage activists say.
The tame ones say marriage was essentially founded to protect the children of the union. It's all about children!. The zealots say that they're
committing unnatural acts! It would taint the institution of marriage
to even think about giving gays and lesbians the right to marriage.
It's all ridiculous. News flash: there are any number of straight
couples that practice sodomy. News flash: they also practice
contraception. But they have the right to get married, nonetheless. Do
you think they ask straight couples at the marriage license bureau if
they're going to have kids? Or if one of the partners takes it up the
ass? No. None of that is germane to allowing people to get married.
They certainly didn't ask the husband or I any of those questions when
we applied for our marriage license. So, if it's not relevant for
straight people, why would it be relevant for those who aren't?
When you take your mind out of the bedroom, you realize it's a simple
matter of rights: what rights are gays and lesbians denied simply
because of who they are? One of the lawyers in the Massachusetts case
last week put it very simply: you cannot write discrimination into the
constitution. And look at the historical precedent of that same action.
We don't have slavery anymore. It was written into, and subsequently
out of, the constitution. We don't have Jim Crow laws anymore. We don't
have segregated schools anymore. We don't have an Equal Rights
Amendment, but there are any number of laws regarding sex based
discrimination. Every time America's legislators have written
discrimination into the constitution, they've been struck down. The
track record is not good. If the definition of insanity is to keep
trying the same thing over and over while expecting a different result,
well, what exactly is this?
This is a personal thing for me. I have rights because I married a man
that two of my best friends do not because they choose to partner with
someone of the same sex. I feel VERY bad about this. The guilt reeks
from me. It's not fair. I think of them as married. They've made a
lifetime commitment to each other; they got up in front of all their
friends, family and in front of a minister no less, pledged to spend
their lives together. The husband and I did the same thing. What's the
difference? They, if you're using the standards that the anti-gay
marriage activists have established---that marriage is about protecting
children of a union---they've technically adhered to the rules better
than I have. We don't have kids. They do. Three of them. They're from
ML's marriage, but the doc couldn't have custody of them if something
happened to ML. Why? Because she's not a legally recognized spouse.
ML's ex's new wife, if the situation were reversed, would. Where's the
equity in that? How is this protecting the children they're responsible
for? It's not. But people will get their knickers in a twist over it
when it's struck down. And it will be. Maybe not this time around, but
we can hope, right? I can understand religions saying no, we won't
marry you because of this, but the state?
What the hell harm could it do? There are more heterosexuals who get
divorced every year than there are gays and lesbians who will apply to
get married. The statistics demand this to be the case. There's no
reason to get twisted up about this. That comes in the "hearts and
minds" stage. We have to get through this before we can
actually discuss the issue of homosexuality in a rational light. Right
now we're not on the same level. Acceptance simply is not possible when
the opposing sides aren't equal in the eyes of the law. Make the fight
fair.