Here we go!

Instapundit tipped me off to this, but I should be credited (shouldn't I?) for tipping all of you off in advance.

Ted Olson argues for overturning Proposition 8 of California. The Justice is Judge Sonia Sotomayor, an Obama appointee:

Justice Sotomayor - "Mr. Olson, the bottom line that you're being asked, and it is one that I'm interested in the answer: If you say that marriage is a fundamental right, what state restrictions could ever exist? Meaning, what state restrictions with respect to the number of people, with respect to that could get married, the incest laws, the mother and child, assuming that they are the age I can accept that the state has probably an overbearing interest on protecting a child until they're of age to marry, but what's left?"

Ted Olson - "Well, you've said in the cases decided by this court that the polygamy issue, multiple marriages raises questions about exploitation, abuse, patriarchy, issues with respect to taxes, inheritance, child custody, it is an entirely different thing, and if you, if a state prohibits polygamy, it's prohibiting conduct. If it prohibits gay and lesbian citizens from getting married, it is prohibiting their exercise of a right based upon their status."

Olson also said banning gay marriage was 'picking out a group of individuals to deny them the freedom (the court) said is fundamental'." (CNS NEWS)

But what about BISEXUALS I keep asking? Homosexual rights advocates claim they are "homosexuals" on a fundamental and programmed level. They often argue it's genetic. If this is so, what about the bisexual that wishes to engage in the "fundamental right" of marriage with another adult? Isn't their status denied recognition in marriage when they can't also marry another person at the same time? A bisexual, to conduct and realize all of their orientation in marriage needs two marriage partners. A man, and a woman in addition to themselves. Marriage as three. Polygamy!

Notice the bigoted language of Ted Olson saying that the plural married are already in abuse, exploitation and so on.

More →

Sphere: Related Content

Prop 8 Unconstitutional? But it changed the constitution didn't it?

I've seen this at least once before. Here's an example in Georgia.

May 17th, 2006 - ATLANTA (Reuters) - "A Georgia judge on Tuesday struck down a ban on same-sex marriage that was approved by voters in 2004, saying it violated the Southern state’s constitution."

You stupid voters. You don't get to change the constitution. (Thanks to "Different River" for preserving the record.)

It came as no surprise to me that after heterosexual monogamy was stricken down as the only form of marriage in California, that the voters would then get a chance to install a constitutional amendment. They did in the form of Proposition 8 and as detailed in a recent post, when Prop 8 passed, all unholy hell broke loose.

As you know, I continue to be torn. I am by far and away not a gay marriage advocate, believing as I do that no human law can create a joining that only God can, and that only God can define. Is it an effrontery to pretend and declare that gay "marriage" can occur? It certainly is, but it cannot occur.

Having also stated for the record, recently, and several times that I would have voted against Prop 8 because I also think its definition of marriage is too narrow, it's still the legitimate law of the state of California. So be it. But that is not going to go down well for Prop 8 haters. They went to court to declare a California Constitutional Amendment, Unconstitutional.

The Mercury News - Silicon Valley - "The legal challenge maintains that Proposition 8 is invalid and takes away a 'fundamental right' from 'just one group — lesbian and gay Californians.' The petition argues that the state constitution cannot be amended if it violates other constitutional rights."

Now wait a minute. Clearly what has just been said here with Prop 8, is that as defined by the California Constitution, duly and properly amended, marriage is not a fundamental right or available in all situations. It is a right for eligible men and eligible women should they wish to marry a member of the opposite sex.

Some situations that legal marriage in California is NOT a fundamental right would be if one of the parties was too closely related or if one of the parties was married already or if one of the parties was of the same gender or if one of the parties was too young or perhaps, incapacitated.

I'm not for the overturning of Proposition 8. It's the law and besides I don't live in California. Judging a constitutional amendment to be unconstitutional is the ultimate in lawlessness. It also sets up courts as absolute judges of what the constitution says, and apparently, if we make an amendment to make it say something judges don't like, they'll just change it back to a form that they did like.

Ridiculous? Yes, but the California Supreme Court plans to hear arguments.

"The California Supreme Court moved swiftly Wednesday to tackle the latest legal showdown over gay marriage, agreeing to consider three lawsuits that challenge the legality of Proposition 8's abolition of same-sex weddings.

At the same time, the state's high court rejected a bid to put Proposition 8 on hold while the legal struggle unfolds, postponing indefinitely any new wedding vows for gay and lesbian couples. The Supreme Court indicated it is likely to rule by June."

So, about 7-8 months. What do you wish to bet that they will, after all the noise has died down, rule the newest part of the constitution, unconstitutional? Prop 8 proponents will return with a new amendment addressing the issue, but then are likely to run into the noise that was the basis of the Georgia decision. That the amendment addresses too many subjects.

By the time Prop 8 proponents get to the stage with the two amendments that need to be passed to pave the way for Prop 8, I'm guessing the way the court demands it be phrased will be so scary to the average voter that they will reject the one amendment that the new Prop 8 will need to be accepted into the California Constitution.

7-8 months. Do you think that by the time the new Prop 8 gets written and it's accompanying amendment that makes it constitutional that Prop 8 opponents won't have moved the electorate that last 2.3 % necessary to simply defeat the measure at the ballot box?

Think also about this. If the amendment is declared unconstitutional in such a broad way, there will be no barrier to polygyny in California. How could there be? They would have just kicked a part of their constitution out on the basis that it conflicts with the principle also expressed in their constitution of the fundamental right to get married, no matter who you are. How could you then stop a married man from marrying again? Isn't it a fundamental right?

More →

Sphere: Related Content

Some OTHER election results of Note

In California, it looks as if Prop 8 is a winner. I say "looks" because with a 4% point lead and 90% of the vote in at the time the article was written, I doubt seriously the trend will reverse.

KOGO - "As of early Wednesday morning, 52% of voters favored passing Prop 8 and 48% were against it, with almost 90% of the state's precincts voting, according to the Secretary of State. The proposition would reverse a ruling by the California Supreme Court, which earlier this year declared that banning same-sex marriage was discriminatory. The proposition would change the state constitution to define marriage as only between a man and a woman."

The initiative now makes heterosexual monogamy the rule in California, unless the language can be twisted so much in the courts, that marriage is indeed between one man and one woman, but someone figures a way to have that happen concurrently. I doubt that will happen, but only two percent of California's population needs to change their minds on this initiative for it to be removed from their constitution. Look for a challenge in the courts. I think that would be bad but that doesn't stop liberals. One would figure that when you change the constitution that changes the underlying presumptions of the law and that would have to be what a court challenge is all about, wouldn't it? It will be interesting to see if someone on the gay "marriage" side of the issue tries to make it a national constitutional issue.

I would have voted AGAINST 8 if a California resident, but not because I would be for gay "marriage." I would have voted against it because marriage is not defined as "only one man and one woman at a time." Marriage is indeed between a man and woman, but a woman has a cap on the number of extant marriages she can engage in (one) and men can have as many as they can bite off, economically.

David Doran survives. Big time.

The San Angelo Standard-Times - "Doran, a Republican, was re-elected to a fourth term Tuesday night after a race against Democrat Shane West. Doran received 967 votes to West's 326."

Doran is EXTREMELY popular. The vote total was a RECORD for him. This suggests that Schleicher County supports him when it comes to the YFZ raid. Since you have to figure few at YFZ would have voted for Doran and they registered to vote in this election, Shane West would have garnered all the votes from YFZ and very few others. Can you say POLARIZATION? The war is still on in that county. They hate the FLDS. More →

Sphere: Related Content