Strengthening Constitutional Self-Government

No Left Turns

Are you surprised?

San Francisco County Superior Court Judge Richard Kramer ruled today that "it appears that no rational purpose exists for limiting marriage in this state to opposite-sex partners." What say our Claremont friends?

Update: For now, just this, but I am, as they say, morally certain that there’s more to come.

Discussions - 10 Comments

I think the court is right. In fact, I love my mother a lot, and I would like to marry her. We’re two consenting adults. She’s menopausal and cannot have any children with hemophilia. But, having children is not a basis for marrying anyway. I simply love her and want to be with her. I am sick of people violating our rights of equality and right to love each other. There is no rational basis to prevent us from marrying. I want to stop being treated unfairly and unequally like a second-class citizen. I also want my sister to be included in a polygamous marriage to share even more love. But, my right to marry her is also being violated. Any good lawyers out there?

Ah, but Tony . . .



Your mother is not a very good example of your sarcastic disdain for this statement. First of all, some lawyer somewhere could claim that she holds an unfair and unobjective place in your mind (and, apparently, heart :-D). Can you really ever impartially judge your own mother? Even before you fell in love, this would be extremely difficult. Because she is your mother, she could just be taking advantage of her position in your life to help make you fall in love with her. This is much different from two unrelated, equal, and consentual adults.



Secondly, you and your mother . . . umm . . . physically commencing your love for one another could be dangerous to the public health (something the Supreme Court doesn’t like). You could claim this same thing against homosexuals, but I’m sure some lawyer somewhere would point out that harming yourself and your partner is different then possibly harming an unborn child with hereditary diseases.



But, I’m not a lawyer and I may be totally off. I just think that wasn’t a very good or fair example. A cousin would’ve been better, but again . . . the public health concern.



Good job, San Francisco.

Why limit this to adults? What is an adult anyway except a person fitting an arbitrary age parameter put in place by meddling parents who want to control their children’s lives; just ain’t fair. Puberty starts at age 12 or thirteen, so chemically they are adults. Who needs those thousands of years of social trial and error as guidelines? And the U.N. has no real problem with bedding chidren. Besides, children can get an abortion without parental consent so there is some precedent to lowering the age. And there should be no reason not to be able to marry Fido. Children wouldn’t be a problem there, but the age limit would really have to go because it would be sick (due to dog years) to marry a 160 year old dog.

It could be tacked on to the judge’s decision but that may be pushing things too fast. Oh well, one step at a time.

A note for the "Humor impaired" (and the sickos): This post as not to be ingested seriously.

G.M.

Isn’t there someone willing to make the argument that the state has no compelling interest in unions that don’t 1) produce children, and 2) regulate the relationships between the sexes? Marriage isn’t a personal act, it’s a social act. Other types of unions are free to exist, but they will not have legal status BECAUSE THE STATE HAS NO INVESTMENT IN THEM. In short, there is no need for the state (or any other group) to subsidize gay marriage.

". . . no rational purpose exists for limiting . . ."

I can think of one: Because under the U.S. form of government limitations are set by voters, not judges. Is that rational enough? Apparently not.

What form of government changes laws outside the consent of the people?

G.M.

Mr. Maddox, I thought limitations were set by the Constitution . . . which is interpreted by judges . . . who are appointed (or elected) directly or indirectly by the people or the representatives of the people . . . Hmmm . . .

Matt, I’m 35 years old and can make reasonably informed decisions about who I want to marry free of coercion. Plus, my mother is menopausal and no fear of a public health issue. Not to mention there is always birth control and her right to control her own body with an abortion. Stop limiting our freedom. Why are you so judgmental? Why are you so willing to take away our rights, equality, and freedom? You cheer San Francisco at the same time you arbitrarily take away our rights?

Matt,

Is your understanding of judge’s power to let someone p*ss down your back, tell you it’s raining, and then say it is "interpretation"?

I have an idea; lets vote the interpretation into law instead of interpreting the vote into law.

Do you see the difference? Hint; rain isn’t warm

G.M.

There is always an attempt to create some illustrative argument (what’s to keep my from marrying my sister) to blow the argument out of the water. But I think it’s more basic than that, and does not require a demonstrable and valid parallel argument.

People have the right to decide social policys a law for their communities. Overwhelmingly, each time this issue is brought up, it is smacked down by a super-majority NO!. No one says gays cannot live together and make social contracts between one another. The people are saying the State should no be invovled in recognizing it.

Some suggest that it hate based. I disagree (except for those creeps that do hate, which I believe are small monority) There are plenty of people that don’t like this idea becuase it’s simply not good for their community. There are things that I disagree with that are not hate based, but are still disagreeable. I don’t favor allowing 16 year olds to vote. I don’t agree to allow porn to be advertized in local news papers, and I sure don’t agree with burning the US flag. For many of us, it’s just that simple.

I wouldn’t get too excited by this. It is just a trial court, this judge will not have the last judicial word.

Further, unlike Mass., California has a true people initiative process. The next initiative will again pass 60/40. If this decision is on state constitutional grounds, it will be reversed. If based on the US constitution, the Supreme Court will either reverese or we will have the federal amendment.

Leave a Comment

* denotes a required field
 

No TrackBacks
TrackBack URL: http://nlt.ashbrook.org/movabletype/mt-tb.cgi/6173