tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3288462925756379716.post5115425284789976668..comments2013-01-03T05:53:29.294-08:00Comments on Left Right Across and Hold: Alas, Poor Prop 8, I knew him well...Bernardo de la Pazhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13311733730523945450noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3288462925756379716.post-3326951161140920092010-08-16T06:43:20.147-07:002010-08-16T06:43:20.147-07:00I *did* read the ruling. As I tried to say, I agre...I *did* read the ruling. As I tried to say, I agreed with the principle behind the challenge to the amendment by the gay activists. I also pointed out that the presentation in support of the amendment was bungled (focusing on so-called 'wisdom' and reasoning behind it). Sidebar: IMHO, Someone should consider bringing impeachment proceedings against elected and appointed officials for refusing to 'defend' the state constitution, regardless of their personal feelings in the matter.<br /><br />Let me say here that I disagree with the amendment itself (it never should have been necessary). Were it not for an activist judiciary 'finding' (inventing) rights out of thin air, it never would gotten this far. <br /><br />Nonetheless, a claim was made. The state court 'found' a 'right' in the State Constitution. The public disagreed with the ruling and took the correct legal approach to change thing more to their liking. This lead to another challenge; throwing the California amendment against the U.S. Constitution. A federal judge decided (for whatever reason) to overturn a legally implemented state constitutional amendment. That he did so in response to a mismanaged defense is not the point... he should have kicked it upstairs as being "above his pay-grade". Period. And it should have argued on the merit of whether or not amending the State Constitution on this subject was within the rights and responsibilities of the citizens of California and nothing more. Period.<br /><br />I am reminded of Prohibition and where the U.S Constitution was amended, and, later, when the populous wished to change their decision, they had to amend the Constitution again. I fail to see why this procedure should not be followed in this case.<br /><br />I won't argue that some kids are well treated when raised by gays. There are some who are well-treated when raised in a traditional household. There are some well-treated in single-parent households. Likewise, in all of those cases, there are also children who are abused. Children should be nurtured and cared for. More power and kudos to anyone who does that, regardless of lifestyle. But that is not the point, either.<br /><br />This is a Constitutional issue, with a special focus on States Rights and Consent of the Governed. It strikes to the core question of "Who Decides"? *THIS* is the issue that needs to be resolved at the highest levels.<br /><br />It's not about what is best for the children or best for society or - for that matter - equal protection under the law. It's about who CONTROLS the law. And that is a slippery slope indeed.<br /><br />I strongly dislike that something as contentious as gay marriage is the lightning rod. It could just as easily have been abortion or illegal immigration. The future of the country is at stake. The tyranny of an unaccountable ruler (even if it's just a 'judge' and not a monarch) invariably leads to destruction.<br /><br />We cannot always choose our preferred battleground; this one is before us and the storm clouds are gathering.<br /><br />- SteveSteve Greenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11281228341784551551noreply@blogger.com