The Tide Rolls In

Okay, in case you were unclear, here's how it works.

Two Arizona men went to California to get what California calls "married". They went to California because the Arizona State Constitution does not recognize marriage as the union of a man and a man. So they went to where it was recognized. "So?" you may ask. "What difference does that make?" Well, you might think it makes no difference. Marriage is still defined as the union of a man and a woman in Arizona. But it may not last.

As the story unfolds, one of the two men died of cancer. The surviving man sued to have his name listed on the death certificate as "surviving spouse", making him eligible for death benefits. Sued? Yes, because the state didn't recognize him as married. But U.S. District Judge John Sedwick allowed it and "signaled that Arizona's gay marriage ban may not hold up after he hears a broader challenge to the constitutionality of the law."

You see, that's how it works. The plaintiff, Fred McQuire, said it was "something as simple and sensitive as a death certificate." No big deal. But it isn't the case. No matter how it is accomplished, marriage will be overridden. Californians voted to put it in their state law and the courts threw it out as unconstitutional. So they voted to put it in their constitution and the courts threw it out again. Now any state that stands for a definition of marriage that has been the traditional, longstanding, historical definition is being sued. And other methods, like this "We'll go someplace where it's legal and then force the place we live where it isn't legal to recognize it and that should help eliminate the longstanding, traditional, historical definition."

Why did the judge rule in his favor? The judge ruled that McQuire "demonstrated that he faced irreparable emotional harm" from not being allowed to be listed as the surviving spouse. Note that it was specifically not financial consequences. When we start determining truth from a person's perception of "emotional harm", we are lost.

Now, I could complain again about the false statement that Arizona has a ban on gay marriage, but who's listening, right? Clearly it is not a matter of logic, a matter of history, a matter of reasoning, a matter of the will of the people, a matter of what's right. It's a matter of an extreme minority coercing an entire population to redefine a key societal concept and claiming it is a constitutional right so loudly that no one seems to be able to hear the truth anymore.

And here's the kicker paragraph in the story.

"The court has not yet decided whether there is a conflict between Arizona law and the Constitution, but the court has decided that it is probable that there is such a conflict that Arizona will be required to permit same-sex marriages," said Sedwick, who was nominated to the federal bench in 1992 by President George H.W. Bush.

First, there is no recognition that "same-sex marriage" is a non sequitur. Fine. Second, there is no recognition that Arizona already answered the question because the courts -- the courts, mind you -- are going to decide that "Arizona will be required" to redefine marriage. Most chilling, though, is the tail tacked on the end. This judge was an appointee of a conservative president.

So all of you that urge me to vote for the most conservative candidate even if he's not a good candidate because "Think of the judges he may appoint", you're going to have to do better than that. Because these judges appointed by conservative presidents do not have a very good track record.