04 August 2010

And There It Goes

Judge rules no rational basis for Prop 8, and holds that barring sodomites from calling it marriage violates the equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution (warning: article linked shows some nausea-inducing pictures of Prop 8 opponents celebrating).

To be clear: the natural law, intent of the framers of the Constitution, immemorial custom, 200 years of state laws, and the inherent police power of the sovereign states all amount to "no rational basis".

Other commentators have made the point already, but under the "reasoning" of this decision, prohibitions on incestuous "marriage" and three-way or more-way "marriage" are unconstitutional.

Latinmassgirl will have to tell me again just why she is such a big fan of the American political system.


Peggy said...

Not surprised, but sickened at our being ruled against the will of the people who have spoken time and again. The drumbeat will get louder about the rights of the people and states as we go into the next election.
Relatedly, Congrats to MO for telling O where to go with his healthcare program!

Anonymous said...

The will of some people, not all. And, by the way, homosexuals still are human beings and children of God.

we are required by law to have car insurance, why not health insurance?

Fr. Andrew McAlpin, O.P. said...

I posted this on my blog and on Fox News:

Lets see how far "Separation of Church and State" goes for me when, as a Roman Catholic priest, I refuse to perform the "wedding" of a gay couple. I am not so sure that I will not be accused of a hate crime. This is the fear of many who are against this redefinition of marriage. And that is exactly what it is, a redefining of a term that has meant only one thing for very long time. These are interesting times indeed.

Latinmassgirl said...


Our framers of the Constitution never planned on our judges ruling by judicial fiat. The liberal judges ignore the Constitution and the clear vote of the American people to make their own laws. This is tyranny if I ever saw it. I do not see why a judge such as this one who overturned Pop 8 could not be impeached.

P.S. You will not find many people who wish to go back to the days of the monarchies. They are dead, so get over it. :)

P.S.2 The exception could be wanna be "KING" Obama! Or is it Dictator Obama.

Fr. Andrew McAlpin, O.P. said...

@anonymous "we are required by law to have car insurance, why not health insurance?"

Car insurance has to do with protecting the innocent person you hit with your car, it has nothing to do with the government forcing you to protect yourself.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous - Father is correct and two more points: you are not required to have car insurance; if you wish to enjoy the privilege of driving, you must have insurance. Secondly, the STATE governments require auto insurance.

prekast said...


Right now a Louis XVII looks pretty good...and certainly no worse.

Daniel said...

@Latinmassgirl: The laws, precedents and general purpose of the Constitution in fact created the American political and legal system that it is today; maybe not directly, but at least indirectly in the powers established for the Executive, Judicial and Legislative branches. The great American system allows for judges, individually by themselves and also as a court with multiple justices, to render individual decisions that in effect bind wide groups of people. And since the Supreme Court itself is provided with the authority to determine whether or not something is unconstitutional, it is very hard to make the case (as many often do) that the Supreme Court's proceedings and rulings are unconstitutional and contribute to the current "tyrrany."

I personally prefer a monarchial system, though as you have stated, that system of government is more or less dead in the modern age. I believe the basic idea of a national federal government is plausible, but only when it adheres to the truth. Supposedly democratic unions falter for the most part simply because "truth" and "laws" are left up to they tyranny of the majority. In democratic unions, the majority of people (or those individual offices with the authority and competency to rule) may declare "X is Y" even though, in truth, "X is X"...thus turning Truth on its head.

Jane Chantal said...

Another commenter, some months ago, made the point that this battle was lost when the birth-control pill uncoupled sex from procreation. We stupid people in the West, having embraced that uncoupling with suicidal zeal, rapidly demanded the uncoupling of men and women via "no fault" divorce. Now arrives the ultimate uncoupling.

Point out to advocates of this new order that -- surely by any sane standard -- it is legitimate to enshrine the biological process without which NONE OF US WOULD BE HERE (hello!) and they go "Excuse me, I don't think so."

At times like this I must beg for God's mercy because I find myself thinking that it's time for Him to get rid of us. That we are betraying Him so profoundly that we no longer deserve to exist.

Dennis said...

"When the Christian religion is rejected and repudiated, marriage sinks of necessity into the slavery of man's vicious nature and vile passions, and finds but little protection in the help of natural goodness. A very torrent of evil has flowed from this source, not only into private families, but also into States... Then, if they are hindered by law from carrying out this shameful desire, they contend that the laws are iniquitous, inhuman, and at variance with the rights of free citizens; adding that every effort should be made to repeal such enactments, and to introduce a more humane code..."
-Pope Leo XIII, Arcanum 27

thetimman said...

Dennis and Jane, nice points. Dennis, that quote from Leo XIII is particularly appropriate. What prescience. I am going to post that on the main page. Thanks.

Peggy said...

This is how Terri Schiavo was killed. A district court makes findings of fact that cannot be appealed. Appeals are based on procedures or points of law, not points of fact.

This "judge," gay by the way, claims the opposition to gay "marriage" was strictly about religious moral disapproval. In fact, some marriage defenders only use the moral argument, which isn't really enough to win in a court of law. There is also, as Timman notes, the ENTIRE HISTORY OF MANKIND, across religions (beliefs or no beliefs), cultures, lands, times. Marriage has always been about kinship, reproduction, & regulating sexual activity and child rearing in a society. Anthropologists have always presented this social theory of marriage. Marriage has always been heterosexual, even if poly-amorous in some societies. Women civilize men; other men do not. Jane Chantal is so right about decoupling marriage from reproduction and sex. Incredibly prescient quote from Pope Leo XIII.

Horribly frightening ruling. Our courts hold little hope for our liberty.

I am not sanguine about monarchy. There've been plenty of arbitrary, capricious and fiscally irresponsible monarchs. I see where it might be more biblical, but how are the rights of man and a moral society more assured under monarchy?

Anonymous said...

The majority of the people thought the proposition was right and voted that way, but at the end of the day, hang the will of the people and their vote. What's the point when it will be over ruled by a judge later anyway?

Daniel, Jane and Peggy comments are so to the mark. Rulings like this are frightening for our liberties. Sodomy is sodomy, no matter how it's packaged.

StGuyFawkes said...

The deeper problem is that gay "marriage" borrows from the legitimacy of valid marriage and implies the moral validity of homosexual acts. The purpose of the gay "marriage" movement is to grant moral legitimacy to gay sex.

If the Supreme Court should find with Boies and Olson then those of us who wish homosexuals well in their civic and professional lives, but who insist on the traditional view of their behavior, those such conservative moderates will have no place to stand.

The view that homosexuality is evil, although legal, will seem quaint without the benefit of law to support it.

Latinmassgirl said...


Although, I understand your points, I do believe that the framers of our Republic thought they had all the necessary checks and balances. They gave the judges the power to rule on whether a law was constitutional to limit the power of the politicians. I really think that they never envisioned the judges legislating from the bench such as this judge deciding to rule out prop 8, thus basically making gay marriage the law of the land.

What just amazes me is that just 20 years ago, nobody would have ever thought that gay marriage would even be considered. Today people think that there is no way marriage between children and adults would be considered. . .

thetimman said...

Just as a clarification, the Constitution does not give the power to declare laws unconstitutional to the Supreme Court. It says nothing at all on this point. The Court claimed this power for itself in the very first legislation from the bench in 1803 in Marbury v. Madison.

There are a number of other ways this could have been addressed. The executive branch, or the states, could refuse to carry out laws they found to be unconstitutional, for instance. Asking the Court to check itself and not overstep its bounds, LMG, is the same as asking Congress not to pass such a law in the first place.

So, while the Court taking this power is one, maybe even a very practical, solution, it is not constitutionally mandated.

just wondering said...

if any have not done so, i would recommend reading, Rules for Radicals, a pragmatic primer for realistic radicals, by saul alinsky. this book, dedicated to lucifer the first radical to win his own kingdom, is the enemy's playbook. the prop 8 decision is following the leaders plan.
"Dogma is the enemy of freedom. Dogma must be watched for and apprehended at every turn and twist of the revolutionary movement." - Saul Alinsky
the attempt to separate love from life is part of the leader's plan. lucifer won his own kingdom, but let's not forget what kingdom that was, hell.