U.S. Constitution - 1, Anti-Gay Rights Proponents - 0
The recent California decision shooting down same-sex marriage ban is a victory for the U.S. Constitution by Raven West
(libertarian)
Sunday, August 8, 2010
The recent decision by Judge Vaughn Walker that overturned California's highly controversial Proposition 8 which banned same-sex marriage, was not so much as a victory of homosexual rights against religious zealots as it was a victory of the U.S. Constitution over an individual State's Constritutional biased amendment.
It's no secret that fundamental rights are being chipped away bit by bit nearly every day. The
First Amendment secures the right of the people to peacefully assemble, but only in designated "protest zones" . The Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms has been watered down to the point of non-existence. The Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable search and seizures has practically vanished due to the never-ending, never-winnable "war on drugs" and the "Patriot Act" has everyone stripping down to their skivvies if they want to board an airplane, and helps excuse warrant-less wire-taps. Eminent domain violations under the 5th Amendment are rampant, and there is still no Sixtn Amendment right to due process for those who are still imprisoned at Guantnamo.
One would think that the Bill of Rights is nothing more than outdated words on crumbled parchment with little meaning and even less protection. Until one man in a small court accomplished what no other judge dared attempt; he upheld, supported and defended the one Amendment which trumps all others: The Fourteenth which simply states that "No State shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Marriage included.
Those who voted for Prop 8 are livid. How DARE this "activist" judge void our vote, they say. Guess they missed that class in high school, or just didn't quite understand the premise that voting for any proposal that violates basic constitutional rights is void, no matter how many people vote for it.
It wasn't the judge being an "activist" as much as the judge doing his job. There is a reason why the law is called "Black Letter". As any first year law student knows, there is a specific formula for briefing a case. First, there's the facts, then the legal issue, followed by the rule of law which applies to the issue, followed by the legal analysis and the conclusion.
In this case, Judge Walker did what all judges are required to do and make a ruling based on the facts of the case and the law. Social issues, emotional feelings, political lines or religious fanatics will not make one iota of difference unless the proponents of the marriage ban can show evidence, a preponderance of evidence that their claims have any merit. They can not, because they have none. In fact, the evidence taken from other U.S. states and other countries where same-sex marriage is legal, no harm as come to anyone, of any age, ever.
It wasn't that long ago state laws were enacted that made it illegal for members of different races or religions to legally marry. The arguments then were nearly identical to those today. We have to "protect" traditional marriage to save the children. They argued that mixed race offspring would suffer horribly unless both of their parents were of the same race. Why, they could even grow up to be, dare we say, President or the United States!
Because marriage is controlled by the government, and that's a debate for another column, the U.S. Constitution trumps any State's attempts to violate the basic fundamental rights guaranteed to each and every citizen no matter their race, religion, or sexual preference.
At least until the Supreme Court says otherwise.
The recent decision by Judge Vaughn Walker that overturned California's highly controversial Proposition 8 which banned same-sex marriage, was not so much as a victory of homosexual rights against religious zealots as it was a victory of the U.S. Constitution over an individual State's Constritutional biased amendment.
It's no secret that fundamental rights are being chipped away bit by bit nearly every day. The First Amendment secures the right of the people to peacefully assemble, but only in designated "protest zones". The Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms has been watered down to the point of non-existence. The Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable search and seizures has practically vanished due to the never-ending, never-winnable "war on drugs" and the "Patriot Act" has everyone stripping down to their skivvies if they want to board an airplane, and helps excuse warrant-less wire-taps. Eminent domain violations under the 5th Amendment are rampant, and there is still no Sixtn Amendment right to due process for those who are still imprisoned at Guantnamo.
One would think that the Bill of Rights is nothing more than outdated words on crumbled parchment with little meaning and even less protection. Until one man in a small court accomplished what no other judge dared attempt; he upheld, supported and defended the one Amendment which trumps all others: The Fourteenth which simply states that "No State shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Marriage included.
Those who voted for Prop 8 are livid. How DARE this "activist" judge void our vote, they say. Guess they missed that class in high school, or just didn't quite understand the premise that voting for any proposal that violates basic constitutional rights is void, no matter how many people vote for it.
It wasn't the judge being an "activist" as much as the judge doing his job. There is a reason why the law is called "Black Letter". As any first year law student knows, there is a specific formula for briefing a case. First, there's the facts, then the legal issue, followed by the rule of law which applies to the issue, followed by the legal analysis and the conclusion.
In this case, Judge Walker did what all judges are required to do: make a ruling based on the facts of the case and the law. Social issues, emotional feelings, political lines or religious fanatics will not make one iota of difference if they're not based on legal facts.
Unless the proponents of the marriage ban can show evidence, a preponderance of evidence, that their claims have any merit, they will fail. After the testimony given by the anti-marriage witnesses, it was quite obvious that they cannot, because there isn't any such evidence. There is not one documented case from any other country or U.S. states where same-sex marriage is legal, that any harm as come to anyone, of any age, ever.
It wasn't that long ago state laws were enacted that made it illegal for members of different races or religions to legally marry. The arguments then were nearly identical to those today. We have to "protect" traditional marriage to save the children. They argued that mixed race offspring would suffer horribly unless both of their parents were of the same race. Their lives would be so difficult that they could even grow up to be, dare we say, President or the United States!
Because marriage is controlled by the government, and that's a debate for another column, the U.S. Constitution trumps any State's attempts to violate the basic fundamental rights guaranteed to each and every citizen no matter their race, religion, or sexual preference.
At least until the Supreme Court says otherwise.
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 9
thumbs so far
The views expressed
in this article are those of Raven West only and
do not represent the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates.
Raven West is solely responsible for the contents
of this article and is not an employee or otherwise affiliated
with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
Posted By: Billy Roper
Date: August 9, 2010 02:42:24 AM
Wow, so suddenly, after a couple of centuries of having the Constitution, the original intent of the authors included legalizing homosexual marriage? Ya think so?
Marriage is not covered in the Constitution at all, meaning that it should be a tenth amendment issue, left to the states, or to the citizens. Otherwise, the liberal interpretation of "equal justice under the law" would also require changing the law to include beastiality marriages, necrophilia marriages, or inanimate object marriages, Barney Frank's personal predelicitons notwithstanding.
Of course, the judge was prejudiced and should recused herself.
So, back to original intent...what would the authors of the U.S. Constitution have said about this verdict?
Homosexuality was treated as a criminal offense in all of the original thirteen colonies, and eventually every one of the fifty states. Severe penalties were invoked for those who engaged in homosexuality. In the penalty for homosexuality in several states was death—including New York, Vermont, Connecticut, and South Carolina (Barton, 2000, pp. 306,482). Thomas Jefferson advocated “dismemberment” as the penalty for homosexuality in his home state of Virginia, and even authored a bill to that effect.
