Alas, Poor Prop 8, I knew him well...

Steve,

It now appears that no path to the Supreme Court exists for Judge Walker's Prop 8 ruling. The substance of the issue may of course arrive at the Supreme's doorstep in a year or so, but not in the form of an appeal of this ruling. Only the State of California, as represented by Governor Schwarzenegger and its relevant officials (each named in the suit), have the legal standing to appeal the decision - and they have decided to let the ruling stand. Erstwhile proponents of Prop 8 are trying to figure out how to either gain standing, or ally with a county agency with (a theoretical) existing standing. But by all accounts they are fighting a losing battle.

Sure, lets "agree to disagree", but I still think you should take a few moments to read through the first 30 or 40 pages of the ruling.

Documents like these never fail to impress me. The ruling runs to 138 pages and is a marvel of objective logic, impartially applied. You may not agree with judge Walker's decision, but its hard for anyone to say he didn't thoroughly consider every detail of testimony, as well as the applicable laws and legal precedents.

One thing which really stands out is the poverty of evidence which the Defendant "Intervenors" presented on behalf of the State. What it consisted of was almost entirely the testimony of David Blankenhorn, the founder and president of The Institute for American Values. As a witness, Mr. Blankenhorn was particularly ineffective. From Judge Walker's ruling:

"Blankenhorn noted that marriage would benefit same-sex couples and their children, would reduce discrimination against gays and lesbians and would be “a victory for the worthy ideas of tolerance and inclusion.” Tr 2850:12-13. Despite the multitude of benefits identified by Blankenhorn that would flow to the state, to gays and lesbians and to American ideals were California to recognize same-sex marriage, Blankenhorn testified that the state should not recognize same-sex marriage. Blankenhorn reasoned that the benefits of same-sex marriage are not valuable enough because same-sex marriage could conceivably weaken marriage as an institution." (my emphasis - jeesh, I could have emphasized the whole thing!)

How ironic. Defendants here seem to have put up a better witness for plaintiffs than for themselves. Mr. Blankenhorn clearly enumerated several, compelling reasons why the court should not consider an "equal protection" exception for Prop 8, while his only reason for an exception was that same sex marriages would simply change the nature of the marriage contract - and this, without being able to adequately explain how this mere change in nature is supposed to weaken it. An impartial observer would most likely conclude that if Mr. Blankenhorn was really serious about strengthening the marriage contract, he would have fought tooth and nail against Prop 8.

One more thing. I've enjoyed our posts on this issue, but before we bury it, I would be remiss if I didn't at least mention one other detail.

Personally, I don't have a problem with social conservatives expressing the view that traditional marriage generally benefits society, while same sex marriages harm it. Naturally, I don't agree with this line of thinking, but neither do I consider it dishonest. Like you, I grew up in a traditional family and can't imagine what it would be like to have had either two moms or two dads instead.

In my heart however, I think what our children and our society need most today is loving, stable relationships - and Lord knows they are hard to come by. Steve, I guess I'm just not a big fan of gay sex. But I am a huge fan of people who live up to their commitments to each other and their responsibilities as parents. If they happen to be gay, well, what of it? What every kid needs most today is not just a roof over his or her head, but also a shoulder to cry on when they are sad and someone up in the stands to shout "hooray!" every time they make a basket or catch a line drive.

Excelsior!

-Chris

Campaign follies - one more

One more thing... No more automated calls of any kind. Only LIVE people. And they can only talk about themselves and what they think. No one can speak for anyone else.

That means if Newt, Sarah Palin, Nancy Pelosi, the President, Howard Dean, Michael Steele, et.al. - whoever - want to encourage me to vote for their chosen candidate, THEY have to call me personally. Live. No recordings. Ditto for all campaign workers. Heck, it applies to the Candidate themselves! Tell me what YOU think, not why someone else is endorsing so-and-so.

That would cut down on the calls a LOT.

- Steve

Campaign Follies - response

I agree with your post. I've been getting those calls, too. Both sides. Typically, at the most inconvenient moment of the day.

IMHO, this time around Conservatives smell blood in the water and are circling in vast numbers. That shouldn't be necessary, but horn tooting is the order of the day. *sigh* I am reminded of similar calls I received during 2008, - from liberals, surprise, surprise - which devolved in many cases to "It's all Bush's fault, so vote for me!" Same song, just circling in the opposite direction. *sigh*


Why not open the window for candidates to apply FOR ALL ELECTED OFFICES by the first Tuesday in August (but they cannot 'campaign' until August). Primary elections on first Tuesday in September. Runoffs (if any) on 3rd Tuesday in September. Full Campaigns to start on first Tuesday in October. General Election on first Tuesday in November. All other "campaigning" - including phone calls, signs, TV spots, etc. are prohibited outside those dates... except for special elections, which have a similar, and very tight, schedule to follow.

It might not be perfect, and the candidates hardly better, but at least the nonsense would be over quicker.

Oh... and Caller ID should be provided by telephone companies - as a public service - at no charge during campaign season... then, we'd all know when to avoid answering the phone.

;-)

- Steve

Campaign Follies

Steve,

You will have to forgive me, but my "tipping the hangman" post was prompted mostly by the ridiculous robo-calls I have been receiving from Republican candidates - larded up, if you will, by the truly moronic and tasteless flyers I have been receiving in the mail. Somehow, I, a flaming, tree-hugging, free-swinging liberal, got put on some Republican mailing list. The year before last I even got a signed "best wishes" pic from John and Sarah. Jane, as staunch a conservative as ever walked the Earth, got bupkis from them.

This is not to say we libs don't have our fair share of hypocrites and ne'er do wells. Its just that lately, to my eye and ear, the conservative stuff is wailing the tar out of the liberal stuff when it comes to cheesy, hard to swallow promises. I even got a robo-call from some dude running for a minor, Paulding County office which led with his promise that he would do "everything in his power" to put a stop to illegal immigration - which made me stop and wonder how much power the office of dog catcher can bring to this issue.

My take on this is at least the liberals this year have paid us the courtesy of lying by omission. Cons on the other hand are lying by, well, lying. Not much to base your vote on I know, but if you have to vote for a liar, at least you have the opportunity of voting for a good one.

Nathan Deal's robot called me the other day and explained why his Republican primary opponent for Governor, Karen Handel, was about the only person in the universe capable of making Jabba the Hut look like Billy Graham. Apparently, Ms Handel favors giving money to promote gay sex between adult men and boys as young as 13. And that's just the tip of the iceberg, at least according to this tele-marketing R2D2. Imagine that. If this is the character of his campaign against a fellow Republican, what will he use against his Democratic opponent, napalm?

At age 60, my experience with American political shenanigans covers a lot of ground. I'm willing to concur that liberals in many past election cycles have trotted out the worst and most outrageous lies imaginable. The campaign of Hubert Humphrey (an otherwise decent fellow) was one notable example. They set the bar high - but these days conservatives seem to be clearing it with relative ease.

-Chris

Prop 8 closure - paging SCOTUS!

I guess we're just going to have to agree-to-disagree on this one.

First, the presentation of the case was completely bungled. For purely political reasons, the state AG refused to defend his own state's legal defined constitution - and that's his JOB for heaven's sake! And that's only part of the problem with how this case was mismanaged from all sides. It's a mess, to be sure. And to allow a poorly managed presentation in a lower federal court to be used as justification for overturning a state constitutional amendment is dangerous (no, it's not that same as overturning a state law).

Second, it is the function of the court to protect the legally defined rights of individuals. THAT aspect of this case, for those who disagree with the amendment as written, is CORRECT. If an injured party believes its rights or legal protections are in danger, they have the right (and obligation) to ask the courts to address their complaint. I have no qualm with that position. But you need to go to the proper venue.

Short form: I think constitutional questions need to be handled at higher levels than was done in this case. I believe its the responsibility of the SCOTUS to properly rule on *all* conflicts between a State Constitution and the U.S. Constitution. That's where such issues will end up anyway. SCOTUS refusing to hear the case means the amendment stands as is. Simply, lower courts should have the Good Sense to stay away from issues of conflict between State Amendments and the U. S. Constitution. That doesn't mean it has happened that way in the past, but that was the idea in the beginning.

Now, if this was the case of a state LAW conflicting with the U.S. Constitution... a different matter. Precedence of existing rulings on constitution grounds have their place. But there has been no constitutional ruling on gay marriage, *other* than the California Amendment to its own state constitution to prohibit it. Q: How can a state constitutional amendment be "unconstitutional"? A: Only if it is in *direct* conflict with the U.S. Constitution. Why are we wasting time in lower courts? (because one side sees an advantage, and that is wrong, too).

The correct venue for such a ruling belongs to SCOTUS, not a U.S. District court, and definitely not a lower federal court. If a law should be set aside (enjoined, suspended, stayed, etc.) it makes sense to go through the process of dong that in the fastest method. But a constitutional issue? You *know* it's going to go up the line, regardless of the ruling at lower levels - it only makes sense to go where the ruling belongs.

This issue needs to be addressed by SCOTUS. Regardless of the ruling there, one side (or the other) will be dissatisfied. *BUT* there are procedures which may be followed (by the citizenry) to overturn the ruling of SCOTUS. This is Consent of the Governed in action. The purpose of the 13th and 14th amendments were in response to slavery and have (through SCOTUS rulings) been applied in other areas as well. Those are the rules; that's how our system is supposed to work.

If there is a need to implement a national policy on gay marriage, then go through the LEGISLATIVE process to do it. If you can't do it legislatively, DO NOT try to circumvent the rules by using the judiciary to get your way. The ERA Amendment (whether a good idea or bad) failed, its saving grace is that they tried to follow the rules: gay marriage is no different from the ERA, abortion, flag burning, and other so-called 'moral' issues. IMHO, right now - just like all other issues affecting marriage - the legal control is in the hands of the states.

But, as I said, we're just going to have to agree-to-disagree on this one. Nice posts on both sides.

- Steve

Tipping the Hangman

A short response (for a change) -

I've always felt that the BEST kind of elected official was the guy that didn't want the job. He just stepped up to do something that needed to be done out of a sense of civic duty. His full intention was to 'serve his time' (or 'giving back' in the popular parlance), and then return as quickly as possible to dealing with matters directly impacting his own (private) life. The last thing on his mind would be creating a 'career' out of 'public service', and certainly he didn't approach the job with the intention of providing favors friends (and himself). I think they used to be called 'statesmen' or something like that, and are quickly becoming extinct. Pity the EPA and PETA don't see the value and trying to preserve THAT particular species.

Anyone that pursues elective office - regardless of party affiliation - on that specific principle (few and far between as we've seen) typically gets my support until proven otherwise. But the pickings are slim. Sorting through the chaff and chad for these 'pearls of great price' is time-consuming and usually fruitless. *sigh*

- Steve

Prop 8 - (sigh) - again

Steve,

With all due respect, I'll have to admit I'm not impressed by your last post on Prop 8. It seems to me you are simply using a lot of words to re-formulate a flawed line of reasoning.

If you accept that State governments do not have the right to pass legislation which violates the Constitution, which seems a rather self-evident premise, than you must also recognize the legitimacy and purpose of some legal forum which enforces that premise. Logically, shouldn't that forum be a Federal court and a Federal judge? Where and who else would you suggest, The People's Court and Judge Judy?

You seem to be saying there are exceptions to the Constitutional mandate of equal protection, but your application of this notion to the ruling on Prop 8 is unconvincing. Once again, the State of California could not provide any evidence that an exception to this mandate was called for. If they had, at least Judge Walker would have had a basis for kicking this can down the street. But they didn't. For heaven's sake, read the transcript - or Judge Walker's accurate summary of it.

Steve, States can't go around passing legislation (or amendments) willy nilly which violate our constitutional rights. The 14th ammendment was passed specifically to address this issue. I can't think of any sounder application of it than Judge Walker's.

But setting aside the legalities for a moment, its pretty obvious to me that Prop 8 itself represents the kind of unnecessary government intrusion into our private lives which seems to rankle you so. Stand up for your principles, man!

-Chris