The End of an ERA

The verdict is in. The 138-page ruling is here. According to the court document, the plaintiffs, including "Arnold Schwarzenegger, in his official capacity as Governor of California" and "Edmund G. Brown Jr, in his official capacity as Attorney General of California", have won and the defendants, including "protectmarriage.com" have lost. Judge Vaughn Walker, the U.S. Chief Judge for the Northern California district, has decided that the amendment to the California state constitution that defined marriage as the union of a man and a woman for which the people of the state voted is unconstitutional.

Okay ... now wait a minute ... did I read that right? The people of California legally voted to amend their own constitution to define marriage in the longstanding traditional manner as between a man and a woman ... and the governor and the state attorney general shot them down? Wait ... wait ... what happened to government "of the people"? Okay, okay, I'll move on, but if I were a Californian, I'd be moving to recall my governor and attorney general. I mean, if the best they can do is ignore us, then they have no reason to be there.

Okay, first ... now brace yourselves ... I'm going to post for the sake of clarity the entire text of the amendment to the California constitution. Are you ready? Take a deep breath ... here it comes. "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." If you blinked, you likely missed it. That's it. Hang onto that.

So, what was the original complaint? I'll paraphrase. "We wanted to get married and the only reason we couldn't was Prop 8." Seriously. Okay, they had to get more elaborate than that. So here was their basic case. Article XIV of the U.S. Constitution includes what is called the "equal protection" clause which says, in essence that no state can "deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." The claim is that it prevents each plaintiff from marrying the person of his or her choice, that such choice is sheltered by the 14th Amendment, and that "domestic partnership" is not the same thing as marriage.

Now, "due process" is a bit hard to define. The Magna Carta considers it a function of the law of the land and the legal judgment of peers. That, of course, can't be it because Prop 8 was the law of the land and it was done by the legal judgment of peers. So, of course, "due process" must be something else. What exactly it is isn't defined. Good luck with that. But I would guess that "due process" would need to be defined, to fit into this judgment, as "whatever we don't like" to the plaintiff. There, that fits nicely.

So what did the judge actually rule?

Proposition 8 both unconstitutionally burdens the exercise of the fundamental right to marry and creates an irrational classification on the basis of sexual orientation.

There it is, folks. Clear as day. Or ... is it?

First, I'll let the concept of "the fundamental right to marry" go on by. I mean, seriously? But, okay, let's leave that alone. Let's all agree that everyone has the fundamental right to marry. So, what are the two issues, according to the plaintiffs and the judge? Agreeing with the longstanding traditional definition of "marriage" as a union of a man and a woman is a burden to the right to marry. In fact, it creates a classification ... okay, wait. What does that even mean? And, of course, is it true?

Let's see? What about that single 14-word sentence burdens marriage? Since marriage is defined as the union of a man and a woman, how does requiring a man and a woman to be involved burden marriage? In fact, there is absolutely nothing in the statement that prevents people who consider themselves homosexual from getting married. Oh, they will have to remain within the boundaries of the word, but nothing would prevent a gay man from marrying a lesbian if he so chose. So to stretch this to something that "burdens the exercise of the fundamental right to marry" requires first that you toss out the definition of "marriage". And, look, we're getting pretty good at that, aren't we? I mean, we've moved "gentleman" from a well-mannered and considerate man with high standards of proper behavior to any male that leers at naked women. We've shifted "gay" from happy to homosexual. We've even decided that "Christian" doesn't actually need to include anything about Christ. Okay, so, yeah, I can see that. Since I'm defining "marriage" as my favorite ice cream flavor, I have to say that Prop 8 makes no sense. What does "man and woman" have to do with ice cream? And why can't I define the term however I want since they are?

And then there's this "irrational classification on the basis of sexual orientation". Okay, now, go back and read that 14-word sentence again. Go slow. It's a lot to take in. Be careful. You don't want to miss the orientation test. Missed it? Come on! The judge says it's there! Don't you see where it says, "People who are homosexual are not allowed to eat my favorite ice cream"? (Okay, stupid, I know.) Can you find anything that says anything at all about the "sexual orientation" of anyone involved?

Seriously, folks, the thing is pitiful. Over on page 111 the judge goes into the question of whether they "seek to exercise the fundamental right to marry; or, because they are couples of the same sex, whether they seek recognition of a new right." Valid question. And where did the judge go to find out? The history of the United States. Reasonable. And yet, even though in the history of the United States there never was marriage defined as anything but the union of a man and a woman, that particular fact was irrelevant. The only concern is that "The state regulates marriage because marriage creates stable households, which in turn form the basis of a stable, governable populace." (Never mind that the entire concept of "stable households" is in jeopardy already from "no fault" divorce and under further threat by the disregard in the homosexual community for the concept of "monogamy".) The judge even states, "The evidence at trial shows that marriage in the United States traditionally has not been open to same-sex couples." (I wanted to shout, "Yes!!! See???") But that doesn't matter. The only factors to be considered in "our Nation’s history, legal traditions, and practices" were the irrelevant ones.

So, the court has ruled. Marriage is dead; long live marriage. What is this new marriage? Very simple. Not tough at all. It is just two parties that consent to form a relationship to form a household. That's it. All done. Oh, you know what was key in his decision here? "Race and gender restrictions shaped marriage during eras of race and gender inequality ..." so, because genders are no longer significant "gender no longer forms an essential part of marriage." For those of you who assure me that the radical feminism that has continued to thrive until "gender equality" has arrived with the concept that gender no longer forms an essential part of our society, please, shut up. I think the judge made my point.

On what basis the government will now try to regulate the rest of the questions of "marriage" (which no longer has the same meaning as before) I cannot imagine. How can they possibly refuse polygamy? If she loves her cat and her cat does not protest, how can they possibly deny her under her right to life and liberty and the fundamental right to marry the right to marry her cat? Me? I think I'll look into joining with that ice cream I've been thinking about. It will be short-lived relationship, but a good one, for sure. For the rest of you ... well, the trouble has been brewing for decades, and this isn't the end of it. It only goes on from here. Do you detect some sarcasm on my part? It's only because I'm tired of beating the same drum. It isn't about "equal rights". It's about the meaning of marriage, the importance of gender, the value of values. And even though this ruling is touted as "equal rights", it appears that the people of California don't have the right to govern themselves anymore. And that, dear friends, is the least of your worries.