This person is masquerading with my identity. I am the real Dwight.

You need a quick lesson in constitutional law, so I am going to give you one:

Neither the 14th Amendment or any other part of the Constitution “prohibit the unequal treatment of anyone absent a “’compelling state interest’”.

The Constitution requires heightened scrutiny for disparate treatment based on certain classifications: race, sex, religion, etc.

Homosexuals are not a protected class under the Constitution and so only a legitimate state interest is required for disparate treatment.

First of all, I want you to know that I am currently taking applications from bisexual and lesbian women of your caliber to join a polygamist cult in Missouri. I would be honored to get your application and since I am the only one on the review committee, I can guarantee a positive outcome.

Like I said in an earlier post, I have no problem with individual states declaring an expansion of their own constitutional rights of equal protection in contradiction to the will of their citizens. If Californians want to be ruled by judicial fiat, ultimately that is their decision.

But Lawrence v. Texas is a joke of an opinion and a bad joke of constitutional jurisprudence. While I personally enjoy getting “Lawrenced”, the substantive due process right simply wasn’t within the scope of the framer’s thought and we know that Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson got “Lawrenced” on a regular basis by slaves and prostitutes alike.

Now back to you, tell me more about this little barista that you keep stalking…dirty, dirty girl.

But, those amendments , and it is also inherentin the constituion as originally drafted, prohibit the unequal treatment of anyone absent a “compelling state interest”.

Gay people are treated differently than others–they are prohibted from entereing into the civil contract of marriage. And this also has a number of consequences–such as taxes, legal ramification of disunion, etc. There are some 3000 specific instances in federal law alone that confer benefits on heterosexual married couples, that are not available to same sex couples.

So is there a compelling state interest in treating these two groups differently?

The courts that have said yes claim there is a compelling state interest in promoting and licensing propogation. That is just a pretend reason–since about half of the births are out of wedlock.

So, actually the courts of Californa and Massachusetts have been very rational–and brave only in the sense there is such hysteria whipped up in the publc about it. Parenthetically, I note that Massachusetts has not fallen into the sea or been reduced to a pile of salt–it has had no effect on anyone, others than same sex couples who wish to wed.

I will agree with you that Roe v. Wade and some others were wrong–that is because they were novel legal arguments–designed to reach a result. Same sex marriage is not–to rule against it the courts have to engage in novel reasoning the othe way.

In America, which is a democracy, but which we value and protect the rights and opinons of others, it is sometimes necessary for the courts to come down on the side of the rules by which we were founded– the constitution. I have seen polls that when the Bill of Rights is presented to the publc as a proposal Congress is considering it is overwhelmingly oppossed. The constitutional rights were snuck in my some elistits who were enamered of the classical liberal thinking of the Englightenment.

Although, most changes of a civil rights nature do start at the bottom and move up–there is a stubborn resistance–when the courts are useful. How long would it have taken for segration or the laws against miscegnenation to end without the intervention of the courts?

~Becky

Gore was following the legilsative approved process in the recount, and Bush, knowing he was going to lose, had the courts step in and stop it.

Sorry you don’t like it, but that is what happened.

Activist judges regardless of their political persuasion circumvent the legislative process. They overstep the purpose and effectively create legislation by interpretation instead of upholding the Constitution.

As Alan’s post highlights it really is a matter of circumventing the process for political expediency. In that light, regardless of the outcome, it’s an abhorrent practice.

I didn’t articulate my point of view quite right. In my own fantasy world the only state-recognized unions would be similar to common law ones between two individuals who have shared living space for an extended period of time. This could go beyond just two people entering into a sexual relationship too. For example, my father was lived at home with his two “parents”: his father and his father’s aunt. There’s really no reason for marriage or unions to be recognized by the government other than, as Justin stated in his earlier post, for “legal and property purposes, and nothing else.”

But the likelihood of this sort of thing becoming law is highly unlikely, so I’m supporting gay marriage rights at the current time since it it the only sensible approach which has any likelihood of becoming reality. But I also recognize that a ban on gay marriage isn’t necessarily prohibited by the US or California constitution. In fact, many states have implemented bans into their very constitutions via amendments.

So we’ve got a very confusing situation here that varies from state to state… but as it stands, states may either ban or allow same-sex (or heterosexual, or polyamorous, or incestuous) marriage if they choose. That makes it even more confusing… so while I’m all for gay marriage, I should have pointed out that I’m totally aware of how truly effed up this situation actually is.

Or is it only activist judges who they don’t agree with that they don’t like?

Anyway, that’s not directed at you ASC….your points are well reasoned and I respect where you are coming from. I do, however, agree with Mike. I can appreciate that judges do sometimes stretch things, but it is a logical outgrowth of the now longheld opinion that the Supreme Court is entrusted with maintaining the consistent and orderly development of federal law. Take special note of the word “development”

The law is not static, it evolves.

I’m pretty sure the Constitution doesn’t guarantee heterosexuals the right to marry, either. Besides, this decision is specific to the State of California.

What happened there today is that the Calif. Supreme Court — which is comprised of six Repubs and one Dem, by the way — did its job: overturning a law that reached too far into the lives of the people it’s intended to serve. As a conservative, I applaud the Calif. Court — not because I approve of gay marriage (I’m never going to have one so it matters not at all to me), but because it was the right decision for it to make.