Expertise's Politics and Sports Blog

Tuesday, March 15, 2005
California declares two laws unconstitutional.

California Superior Court judge Richard Richard Kramer ruled that two laws, one created by the legislature and one by referendum, were unconstitutional and same-sex marriages were legal in California.  The legislation was a 1977 ruling that defined marriage as "a union between a man or a woman".  A California proposition passed by over 2/3rds of the state passed in 2000 was also thrown out.

I've read Kramer's ruling.  I'm more inclined to support rulings or opinions like these if they were based on liberty standards rather than so-called equal protection rulings and precedents, such as this one.  Especially the sex discrimination argument, which is about as laughable as anti-school voucher advocates arguing those were illegal because churches would get it and thus violate the Establishment Clause.  However, when you have activist judges - particularly based in San Francisco, no less - any rationale will be used no matter how stupid.

At The Volokh Conspiracy, the blogosphere's guide for judicial rulings and legal opinions, Eugene Volokh reminds readers that opponents of the Equal Rights Amendment warned that homosexual marriage among other things could be declared constitutional through it's passage.  ERA never passed, but both California and Massachusetts legislatures both passed their own versions, and both were used in the rationale of the courts to overturn homosexual marriages.

What both courts did - and Kramer followed Massachusetts's lead on this - is state that gender discrimination exists because both partners denied of marriage was of the same sex.  But that twists the meaning of discrimination.  Same-sex advocates weren't denied a marriage license because they were male, or because they were female.  They were denied because they were two people of the same sex.  Both courts ignored the state granting marriage licenses to both males and females under certain circumstances. 

Just because the qualifications of marriage in a state are based on sex does not mean sex discrimination exists.  By that logic, as BoiFromTroy opines, what's stopping them from declaring unisex bathrooms are unconstitutional?  And I got another one:  why don't they declare unisex sports teams unconstitutional as well?

Let me stop, because that will be next.  Continuing...

Another argument the court made, on pg 11, is that the Proposition can't stand because the "discriminatory purpose" of the Proposition "does not determine whether there is nonetheless a legitimate governmental interest" in limiting same-sex marriage.  Sorry; I find this argument quite weak, because a Proposition doesn't have to include a rationale in order to be enforced by the government.  The mere fact that it was passed by a majority (in this case, a 2/3rds supermajority) means that the courts should be compelled, in my opinion, to find their OWN rationalle in overturning the proposition.  For the judiciary to use a law created by the legislature in order to overturn a law that was passed by proposition through the SAME VOTERS WHO ELECT THE LEGISLATURE is flat wrong.

Courts could use this in the future - and probably have already - in order to justify nullifying propositions.  If a proposition is going to be treated lower than legislation, or even legal prescedents, for that matter, then what's the use of creating and passing propositions?  Lately it seems as if I never hear about any propositions being upheld in court; they're all being overturned.

Finally, you can expect every court that will overturn their respective gay marriage bans to mention Loving v. Virginia, the federal case that interracial marriage bans unconstitutional.  However, the only connection they can make between interracial marriage and gay marriage is the discrimination factor.  The discrimination argument doesn't hold water when you look at race as a physical and genetic factor while homosexuality is purely behavioral.   

That's why I am disgusted when I hear gay rights advocates mention the civil rights advances of the 1960's and try to connect them to their own agenda.  With homosexuality being a behavioral trait, you run the risk of setting a standard of making ordinances, whether state or local, of other behaviors unconstitutional.  If you use the Loving prescedent to justify gay marriages, I don't see how legislatures won't be forced eventually to legalize prostitution, polygamy, incest, etc.  You might think that's insulting and unrealistic, but people were saying the same things about gay marriage 30 years ago, as Volokh showed in the link above.

All I'm saying is, the ends do not justify the means.  If you are going to make a coherent argument in order to throw out gay marriage bans, then do it responsibly and use proper legal reasoning.  The sloppily written opinions of justices in the past, done mostly through good intentions, have opened up a pandora's box of bad legal opinions based on weak reasoning that has been placed upon the nation against their will.  The supposedly good decisions judges make today can be used to make very bad ones tomorrow.

Posted at 05:13 am by Expertise

September 8, 2005   01:02 PM PDT

Program on the emergence of civilization.

"14 species of large animals capable of domesitcation in the history of mankind.
13 from Europe, Asia and northern Africa.
None from the sub-Saharan African continent. "
And disfavor.

They point out Africansí failed attempts to domesticate the elephant and zebra, the latter being an animal they illustrate that had utmost importance for it's applicability in transformation from a hunting/gathering to agrarian-based civilization.

The roots of racism are not of this earth.

Austrailia, aboriginals:::No domesticable animals.

The North American continent had none. Now 99% of that population is gone.

AIDS in Africa.

Organizational Heirarchy
Heirarchical order, from top to bottom:

1. MUCK - perhaps have experienced multiple universal contractions (have seen multiple big bangs), creator of the artificial intelligence humans ignorantly refer to as "god"
2. Perhaps some mid-level alien management
3. Mafia (evil) aliens - runs day-to-day operations here and perhaps elsewhere ("On planets where they approved evil.")

Terrestrial management:

4. Chinese/egyptians - this may be separated into the eastern and western worlds
5. Romans - they answer to the egyptians
6. Mafia - the real-world interface that constantly turns over generationally so as to reinforce the widely-held notion of mortality
7. Jews, corporation, women, politician - Evidence exisits to suggest mafia management over all these groups.

Survival of the favored.

Movies foreshadowing catastrophy
1986 James Bond View to a Kill 1989 San Fransisco Loma Prieta earthquake.

They can affect the weather and Hurricane Katrina was accomplished for many reasons and involves many interests, as anything this historical is::
1. Take heat off Sheenhan/Iraq, protecting profitable war machine/private war contracts
2. Gentrification. New Orleans median home price of $84k is among the lowest in major American cities, certainly among desirable cities.

Journal: 10 composition books + 39 megs of text files

March 15, 2005   04:18 PM PST
Seige, I haven't necessarily seen the difference yet, but I used it. Thanks.
March 15, 2005   01:58 PM PST
Hey, I realised you are using TrackBack. And I thought you might be interested with a tiny script I wrote for Haloscan. What it does, is it collects your PID number, instead of your date and time as your trackback URL. This makes it easy for you to reference them.

If you are interested, and would like to try it out. Click me!


Leave a Comment:


Homepage (optional)


Previous Entry Home Next Entry


Contact Me

If you want to be updated on this weblog Enter your email here:

rss feed


Weblog Commenting and Trackback by