What Judicial Oligarchy?

February 24th, 2011

When the so-called ‘justices’ of the California Supreme Court, in their ruling overturning Proposition 22, commanded the State to recognize same-sex ‘marriages’ immediately – in the face of warnings that those ‘marriages’ would be be the source of enormous legal confusion when Proposition 8 passed – it was a case of the judiciary attempting to deny the people their right to self-rule (Proposition 22 passed by 61%) and it was a very transparent attempt to influence the outcome of Proposition 8, and it was an obvious attempt to make the will of the people utterly irrelevant anyway by making same-sex so-called ‘marriage’ a fait accompli irrespective of any constitutional requirements.

And when, after Proposition 8 did pass, the Court dealt with the 18,000 same-sex ‘marriages’ that had occurred in the five month interim between their ruling on Proposition 22 and the voters’ ruling on Proposition 8 by ordering that those ‘marriages’ would be forever recognized irregardless of what the law now was, it was a monstrous act of judicial haughtiness, judicial cynicism, and judicial cowardice… and it was obvious they were determined that same-sex ‘marriage’ would continue to be a fait accompli irrespective of any constitutional requirements… and it left in place, along with a caste of 36,000 super-privileged citizens, the attendant legal morass that all branches of government must now sort out in terms of regulation and law.

Ted Olson and David Boies are the kind of guys who like that sort of judicial tyranny.

From PinkPaper.com:

American Foundation for Equal Rights lawyers Ted Olson and David Boies filed a motion with the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals, yesterday, asking that it immediately lift its order preventing same-sex marriages in California.

Apparently lawyers Olson and Boies hanker for even more of the kind of opportunity to spawn legal chaos that those 18,000 so-called ‘marriages’ has provided to them and their ilk. They got to have themselves some more of that stuff…

..it’s how they roll.

Print Friendly
Be Sociable, Share!
  1. Jamie Anne
    February 24th, 2011 at 15:40 | #1

    And when, after Proposition 8 did pass, the Court dealt with the 18,000 same-sex ‘marriages’ that had occurred in the five month interim between their ruling on Proposition 22 and the voters’ ruling on Proposition 8 by ordering that those ‘marriages’ would be forever recognized irregardless of what the law now was, it was a monstrous act of judicial haughtiness, judicial cynicism, and judicial cowardice… and it was obvious they were determined that same-sex ‘marriage’ would continue to be a fait accompli irrespective of any constitutional requirements… and it left in place, along with a caste of 36,000 super-privileged citizens, the attendant legal morass that all branches of government must now sort out in terms of regulation and law.

    You know, we have never had a law that punished people for acts they committed that were against that law before it was implemented. So, if they had of ceased recognizing gay marriages, it would have been unconstitutional, as the constitution directly states that no law may be used to prosecute people before the law was passed.

  2. John
    February 24th, 2011 at 16:50 | #2

    The court overturned Prop 22 on May 15, 2008. Signatures were submitted for the ballot measure that would become Proposition 8 on June 2.

    Prior to June 2, 2008, there was no Proposition 8. Please explain your assertion that the CA Supreme Court justices were presented with, “warnings that those ‘marriages’ would be be the source of enormous legal confusion when Proposition 8 passed.”

  3. Roger Bonilla
    February 24th, 2011 at 17:40 | #3

    Concerning John’s puzzlement about Dr. Morse’s assertion that the Justices should have known that the same-sex marriage ceremonies performed between May 2008 and Nov. 2008 would be the source of enormous legal confusion:

    Proposition 8 had a very long “gestation period.” It was not suddenly organized and all the signatures gathered between May 15 and June 2, 2008. My records show that the “Voters Right to Protect Marriage” initiative, an ancestor of Prop. 8, was launched in California in May 2005.

    Brief research on the Internet revealed this statement, from a July 2007 article in Bay Area Reporter: “On May 25, Protect Marriage submitted two proposed constitutional initiatives titled as the “California Marriage Protection Act.” Both proposed initiatives focus solely on recognizing marriage in California as only between a man and a woman.”

    So the Justices should have known, based on general knowledge or perhaps based on the evidence presented at the In Re Marriage Cases trial (decided May 15, 2008), that their ruling would be challenged in the fall election.

  4. Leland
    February 24th, 2011 at 19:45 | #4

    @John
    “…presented(?) with warnings…”
    Twisting my words a little, aren’t you John?

    The warnings were not made directly in court (at least as far as I know) – if you actually thought I was saying that.

    But the initiative sponsors were adamant all along that they would have more than enough signatures to place Prop 8 on the ballot (by a very wide margin, no less) and during deliberations many very public protestations were made about what the effect would be of allowing those ‘marriages’ to stand. Even if the entire court had been stranded in an isolation chamber so that they never heard anything that was said publicly about the issue, they would have had to have been brain-dead not to have realized it anyway. They knew exactly what they were doing, John. You can count on it.

  5. Leland
    February 24th, 2011 at 19:59 | #5

    @Leland Re: @John
    By the way John, you do remember that immediately after Prop 22 was overturned the court was asked to stay their ruling until after the Prop 8 election for exactly this reason, don’t you?

  6. Leland
    February 24th, 2011 at 22:30 | #6

    @Jamie Anne

    Jamie Anne :
    You know, we have never had a law that punished people for acts they committed that were against that law before it was implemented. So, if they had of ceased recognizing gay marriages, it would have been unconstitutional, as the constitution directly states that no law may be used to prosecute people before the law was passed.

    Jamie, those folks got used badly, there is no denying that. And they could still get burned, too. But it was the CA Supreme Court that put them (all of us, actually) in this mess.

    We are not talking about criminal laws or anyone being prosecuted, Jamie. That has nothing to do with any of this. The constitutionality of mandating that those ‘marriages’ be recognized is the issue in question here. And in fact, as the case is still on appeal, it’s not absolutely impossible that a higher court could yet find that they are not married after all…

  7. Mark
    February 25th, 2011 at 06:03 | #7

    I recall that the organizations at the time that were pushing Prop 8 were pretty specific about not stripping away anyone’s marriages. Their campaign was to prevent additional SSM. Of course it was a ploy: people probably wouldn’t have been to keen to vote for such a discriminatory law if they knew that people who were already LEGALLY married would have their marriages annulled BY THE STATE. But, as soon as Prop 8 passed, THAT’S when we started hearing about rescinding the RIGHTS of those same sex couples who had LEGALLY MARRIED.

    It wasn’t a problem with the justices; it was an issue with those who wrote and pushed Prop 8. They were in such a hurry to impose their discrimination that they failed to look at all the details.

  8. February 25th, 2011 at 12:40 | #8

    The California Supreme Court ruled that the 18,000 COUPLES married during the time that marriage was legal will continue to be married because the ballot measure that was PASSED by the PEOPLE didn’t say that those couples would be stripped of their marriages. Therefore, the California Supreme Court, simply UPHELD the will of the people. If the People of California, wish to strip existing married couples of their rights, then they are more than welcome to amend the constitution again with a ballot measure that specifically removes “marriage” from all existing married same sex couples.

    Your categorization of their decision to keep these marriages intact as leading to “chaos” simply isn’t true. The state is still functioning, heterosexuals are still getting married, and life continues EXACTLY as it did for everyone except gay and lesbians Californians who are no longer able to get married at City Hall. It’s would be your suggestion of stripping these couples of the legal protections of marriage that would cause the chaos.

  9. Leland
    February 25th, 2011 at 12:46 | #9

    @Mark
    @Mark
    I doubt very much that it was a “ploy”, Mark. At least I don’t recall ProtectMarriage.com (the sponsors of the initiative) being the ones who did the complaining – at the time or since then – about the unfairness and danger of creating two inequitably privileged classes of same-sex unions. Kenneth Starr didn’t even object to it during oral arguments at the Prop 8 trial.

    Personally, I still think that was a mistake. I think the voters always understood that the CA Supreme Court had overstepped their authority, both in terms of overturning Prop 22 and attempting to head off the legal procedure for amending the constitution by refusing to stay their ruling until after the election. (That had a lot to do with why the majority voted yes on Prop 8, IMHO.) But what do I know?

  10. Sean
    February 25th, 2011 at 15:09 | #10

    What the heck is the problem with the couples who did get married before Prop 8 staying married? As usual, the sky is falling, to the conservative mind. Much ado about nothing. Marriage is marriage. What difference does it make who gets married and/or divorced?

    If NOM/TRI really cared about marriage, they’d focus on ending divorce. Of course, they aren’t. I think that tells us what they’re really trying to accomplish.

  11. Mark
    February 25th, 2011 at 15:26 | #11

    @Leland
    OK, it wasn’t a ploy. It was done deliberately.

  12. February 25th, 2011 at 20:57 | #12

    1. Starr made the perfectly reasonable point that marriage had always been the union of husband and wife; that throughout the history of California the people of that state had not varied from their support of this two-sexed basis for marriage law. He pointed out that the people had explicitly confirmed this as recently as the year 2000; that they did not overturn this in the meantime; that, in gathering the most signatures ever for a citizen initiative, and then voting in the majority to approve of the marriage amendment, the people of California had reconfirmed what had always been the two-sexed basis of marriage. There was no interuption in this constitutional understanding of marriage.

    2. The high court of CA erred in its pro-SSM opinion. It did so in this context. And it eventually corrected itself — the People are entitled to decide this matter and have decided this matter and did so consistently with an uninterrupted understanding that marriage is the union of husband and wife.

    3. The slight majority of justices on the CA high court played a political game, sadly, by not waiting for the results of the vote on the marriage amendment. They attempted to influence the campaign when they should have remained neutral. Consider: if the amendment had been rejected, then, the court could have proceeded with implementation of its own ruling; but, the court had to have known, if the amendment had been approved the ruling would be subject to the very real prospect of being rendered moot; also that the court was putting people’s decisions in a precarious situation — it would avoid confusion all round if the court had stayed its decision until after the People had decided, one way or another.

    4. The court had a clear alternative that would have been less confusing and more neutral. It could have recommended that the interim SSMs be provided the option to transition to Civil Union status by a given dead line. Sure, the SSM campaign might have contested the dead line and even the option to transition, but that would have taken place on neutral terms rather than terms that the CA court chose — which clearly favored the gay identity group (and the SSM idea) while disfavoring society (and the marriage idea) It goes back to the proper role of the judiciary — and that does not mean grabbing the power to legislate the policy preferences of the justices.

    The court erred on multiple levels. It chose to encourage the abuse of judicial review that the SSM campaign has become dependent upon. It could have honored the limitations of the judicial role and acted more responsibly.

    * * *

    But SSMers who support those errors, especially the court’s refusal to stay its pro-SSM ruling, ultimately depend on a legal principle that they otherwise eschew in their argumentation.

    Marital status is not a probationary status. SSMers attack the centrality of responsible procreation by insisting that husband-wife duos ought to be subject to dissolution by the government if the putatively married couple do not procreate. SSMers likewise say something very like that when it comes to consummation. Perhaps without comprehending their dependency on a principle that flows from the core meaning of marriage, SSMers flaunt anti-marriage terms of argumentation even as they demand that the gay subset of the one-sexed arrangement be treated as identical to marriage.

    The court’s errors, and the double-standards of the SSM campaign and its argumentation, reveal just how unprincipled the ways and means are for promoting the SSM idea.

  13. Jamie Anne
    February 25th, 2011 at 22:44 | #13

    @Leland
    God, I forgot how much it hurt you that gays are having their marriages recognized. I am SO SORRY.
    Way to miss the point. If something was legal for a BRIEF PERIOD OF TIME. One cannot simply declare that action undertaken in that timeframe illegitimate. Yeah.

    God, you people get so offended and scared when gays marry. You really need to get over it. I think religion is kinda stupid, but I don’t go around demanding that the government call it stupid and that all churches be burned.

  14. Sean
    February 26th, 2011 at 05:04 | #14

    I wish Chairm could get more visibility for his “pro-marriage” views, so we could speed the process of achieving marriage equality along faster! It’s not enough to have Maggie Gallagher spouting gems like, “Children need a mommy and a daddy!”!

    Seriously, things wouldn’t be moving so quickly toward equality without the assistance of the “pro-marriage” types!

  15. Mark
    February 26th, 2011 at 05:39 | #15

    @Chairm
    “The court’s errors, and the double-standards of the SSM campaign and its argumentation, reveal just how unprincipled the ways and means are for promoting the SSM idea.”

    There are no “double standards” for those who support SSM.

    The courts did not err – a law that violates the rights of individuals is not legal.

    And, for saying that marriage has always “been the union of husband and wife”, one can just as easily say that it was always the same race. And, just because it’s always been done that way does not make it right.

  16. Sean
    February 26th, 2011 at 14:56 | #16

    Chairm, marriage can still be between a man and a woman. You know that, right? Marriage has never been defined as between a man and a woman to the exclusion of same-sex couples. At least not until recently. That’s when all those states erected constitutional amendments proclaiming marriage as limited to only different-sex couples: it wasn’t previously defined that way.

  17. February 26th, 2011 at 19:24 | #17

    Jamie Anne, get over it, SSM is not marriage it is a fraud and it is not made legitimate by an abuse of judicial review as per the CA high court’s errors.

  18. February 26th, 2011 at 19:34 | #18

    Mark is confused.

    He said: “And, for saying that marriage has always “been the union of husband and wife”, one can just as easily say that it was always the same race.”

    There is one human race and its nature is two-sexed. So, sure, it has always been both the union of husband and wife and both the union of the two halves of the human race.

    But your confusion is revealed when you imagine that this feature of marriage is somehow at odds with the core meaning of the social institution which 1) integrates the sexes and 2) provides for responsible procreation and 3) combines these two highly significant aspects into a coherent whole (i.e. a social institution foundational to civil society).

    SSM is bereft of all of that. It is sex-segregative (and to hear SSMers it is all the more justified, they say, because it is segregative in terms of sexual orientation, as well) even though SSMers insist that neither sex nor sexual orientation is a legitimate basis for lawmaking.

    Mark also said, in his confused way: “And, just because it’s always been done that way does not make it right.”

    The nature of humankind continues to be two-sexed, the nature of human procreation continues to be opposite-sexed, and the nature of human community continues to be both-sexed or complementarily-sexed. This continues to be the basis from which the core meaning arises — as in the past, today; and the key here is whether or not society will continue to respond positively to that core meaning based on it being the justification for the special staus of the social institution.

    SSMers say, no, the core meaning is arbitary. But then their own gay emphasis proves to be unjustified — therefore arbitary — and an unjust imposition on the social institution and societal regard for its core meaning.

    The double-standards of SSMers are their lifeboat in a sea of troubles for their argumentation.

  19. February 26th, 2011 at 19:37 | #19

    Sean, the pro-SSM complaint is that marriage law defines marriage as the union of husband and wife. The SSM remedy is to treat all unions of husband and wife as if they lacked either husbands or wives; to treat marriage as the equivalent of the one-sexed arrangement that has never been treated as marriage in the law.

    (“At least not until recently.” And fraudulently at that.)

  20. Bob Barnes
    February 27th, 2011 at 06:51 | #20

    Chairm :
    Jamie Anne, get over it, SSM is not marriage it is a fraud and it is not made legitimate by an abuse of judicial review as per the CA high court’s errors.

    Show us your proof, it’s that easy.

    I can postulate like you all day, Chairm, but I much prefer to work with facts.

  21. Mark
    February 27th, 2011 at 12:55 | #21

    @Chairm
    “The double-standards of SSMers are their lifeboat in a sea of troubles for their argumentation.”

    Nope. No double standards other than from those who insist marriage is only between a man and a woman. Honestly, Chairm, your diatribes are boring and nonsensical.

  22. Sean
    February 27th, 2011 at 16:41 | #22

    “Sean, the pro-SSM complaint is that marriage law defines marriage as the union of husband and wife.”

    No, Chairm, the complaint be decent, honest folks is that, in some states, marriage law limits marriage to ONLY a different-sex couple, and for no reason other than feigned religious beliefs and/or animosity. That’s un-American.

    Yes, I love how bad religionists come off with their hatred and anger. In the long run, sure, it’s good to have people turning away from silly ancient religious superstitions. We owe a debt of gratitude for gay people for being the foil for assisting in this effort, as well as all the decent, fair-minded straight people who support equal rights for gay people.

    Isn’t it ironic how Christianists actual undermine their own religion? Opposing same-sex marriage (unmentioned in the Bible) yet supporting legal divorce (opposed by both God and Jesus Christ)?!

  23. February 27th, 2011 at 23:04 | #23

    Bob Barnes, for which part of my reply to Jamie Ann, which you quoted, do you need proof? And what would you accept as proof or evidence? And what instead did you mean by “postulate”?

    1. SSM is not marriage as per the core meaning of the social institution which has remained constant across the anthropological and historical records, and remains constant with the nature of humankind itself, and all of which the SSM idea rejects.

    2. SSM is a fraud as illustrated by the SSM argumentation and rhetoric of those who advocate for it.

    3. It is not made legitimate by an abuse of judicial review as per the CA high court’s errors.

    Most likely you depend on the abuse of judicial review by the CA high court which performed the abuse of judicial review upon which the claim of legitimacy is based. The reasoning of that court (i.e. is written opinion) exemplifies the SSM argumentation that illustrates that SSM is fraudulent.

    If you depend on that court opinion (i.e. its offered reasoning) then you depend on its errors as well.

    Do you instead agree with that court opinion in full, or really just with its conclusion? If the former, then, the errors are yours as well; if the latter, then, endgaming would confirm your reliance on the abuse of judicial review, anyway.

    As for postulation, that is what SSMers do here all the time without complain from you, Bob Barnes. See Jaimie’s comment for a good example of assuming what is not proven and, for the most part, assuming what there is a marked evidence for. No matter, your stated standard will be applied to your comments here.

  24. February 27th, 2011 at 23:06 | #24

    Typo corekshun: assuming what ther is a marked lack of evidence for.

  25. Mark
    February 28th, 2011 at 09:57 | #25

    @Chairm
    “1. SSM is not marriage….
    2. SSM is a fraud …….”

    See? These statements are just false as same sex marriage IS marriage in California, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, among others.

    And what does “corekshun” mean? Do you mean correction?

  26. Chairm
    February 28th, 2011 at 12:12 | #26

    Depending on the profound flaws of SSM argumentation, as each example you cited does, does not prove the statements to be false. Quite the contrary.

  27. Sean
    February 28th, 2011 at 15:20 | #27

    I think the profound flaws lie with the OSMers, Chairm. Give us a reason why same-sex couples shouldn’t be allowed to marry. Make a case to limit marriage to different-sex couples, and why such a move would be good for society.

    You think marriage has gone unchanged over millenia? Really? Are women still the property of their husbands? Really? Are we still practicing biblical polygamy? Really? Is a woman expected to marry the man she conceived a child with?

    Sure looks to me like marriage has changed a lot!

  28. Mark
    February 28th, 2011 at 18:45 | #28

    @Chairm
    “Depending on the profound flaws of SSM argumentation, as each example you cited does, does not prove the statements to be false. ”

    The statements are LEGALLY false, does that help make it clearer for you?

  29. Chairm
    March 3rd, 2011 at 00:15 | #29

    Couples? The SSM idea provides no justification for limiting SSM to twosomes of the same sex.

    That, alone, makes your question irrelevant.

    Of course, by ‘same-sex couple’, you meant to invoke your gay emphasis. Yet there would be no gay criterion for eligilbity to SSM. And no same-sex sexual orientation. Indeed, SSM, at law, would not be a sexual type of relationship, as SSMers acknowledge, due to the lack of a legal requirement for same-sex sexual behvior, same-sex sexual romance, same-sex sexual orientation, same-sex affection, and the rest.

    Marraige, at law, is a sexual type of relationship but you reject requirements that do not fit your SSM idea. Your gay emphasis does not justify that rejection but neither is your gay emphasis justified by your own argumentation in favor of SSM.

    SSMers also reject the special reason for the special status of marriage in our laws and culture. They also insist that tradition is insufficient basis for lawmaking so they can’t rely on the relatively modern tradition of romance nor can they demand on arguments that reduce to — that is the way it has been in the past — and so the profound flaws in their argumentation are left indefensible by both the pro-SSM rejection of tradition and longstanding precedent.

    There is no good reason to treat the gay subset of nonmarriage as superior to the rest of nonmarriage. Even SSM argumentation concedes that gay identity is not a just basis for lawmaking or special status and disparate treatment under the law.

    So, scrap same-sex sexual orientation and gay identity for these do not provide a good reason to treat the one-sexed scenario as eligible to marry. What is left as a good reason to change the basis for eligiblity which has stood for millennia?

    SSMers have zilch to offer.

  30. Chairm
    March 3rd, 2011 at 00:20 | #30

    The core meaning of the social institution of marriage has remained unchanged even if the regulations and traditions around that core have varied by time and place in the anthropological and historical records.

    The core meaning: 1) integration of the sexes and 2) provision for responsible procreation and 3) these combined as a coherent whole (i.e. a foundational social institution of civil society).

    SSM is sex-segregative (also promoted as segregative in terms of sexual orientation), does not provide for responsible procreation, and is not foundational much less coherent. It depends on the arbitrary exercise of governmental power and would be entirely a creature of Government and dependant on its master.

    And that arbitrariness stands in direct contradiction with the pro-SSM complaint against the marriage law; and it stands in direct contradiction with the pro-SSM remedy for changing the basis for eliglbity from the core meaning of marriage to the SSM idea.

    Profound flaws abound with SSM argumentation and within the contradictions of SSM rhetoric.

    That is reason enough to reject the SSM idea as a good replacement for the marriage idea.

  31. Chairm
    March 3rd, 2011 at 00:24 | #31

    The proffered reasoning of the pro-SSM justices destroys the SSM idea. Since SSMers here have depended on that reasoning, it ought to suffice as good enough reason to reject the SSM idea.

    Instead they depend on the arbitrary exercise of governmental power in the guise of an abuse of judicial review.

    Such abuse of the judicial role is sufficient reason to reject the SSM idea.

  32. Mark
    March 3rd, 2011 at 16:05 | #32

    @Chairm
    “The proffered reasoning of the pro-SSM justices destroys the SSM idea.”

    LOL, I swear you can’t read half of what you post!

  33. Chairm
    March 3rd, 2011 at 22:12 | #33

    It is ironic that the terms of argumentation that are used to attack the core meaning of marriage, and to promote the SSM idea, destroy the pro-SSM complaint and the pro-SSM remedy. It is a simple matter of testing the SSM idea by applying those very terms of argumentation.

    Poof. The SSM idea stands bereft of justification for special status (marital status is special status) based on the gay emphasis.

    If SSMers depend on the pro-SSM opinion (i.e. the proffered legal reasoning) of the CA high court, then, they depend on its profound flaws. They’d depend on reasoning that destroys the SSM idea itself and renders it a unjust imposition on society.

    SSMers are so confused, due to the primacy of gay identity politics, that they imagine the abuse of judicial review to be the proper role of the judiciary. They attempt to defend the indefensible even as they depend, utterly, on the arbitrary exercise of governmental authority. The SSM idea does not suffice; it is puffed up by the assertion that gay identity politics trumps justice and equality and marriage itself.

  34. Mark
    March 4th, 2011 at 13:39 | #34

    @Chairm
    “SSMers are so confused, …”

    No, just you Chairm

  35. Chairm
    March 4th, 2011 at 23:45 | #35

    If you rely, as the SSM campaign relies, on the abuse of judicial review, then, you are not sincerey arguing against the abitrary exercise of governmental power. You are arguing for it instead. The SSM campaign’s gay identity emphasis is loud and clear in the courtrooms and outside of the courtrooms; it is the source of the confusion that leads to a reliance on the abuse of governmental power while supposedly decrying a perceived instance of such abuse of governmental power.

    That the confusion of which I spoke in my previous comment. It is quite common among SSMers who have commented on this blogsite; Mark has been no exception.

  36. Mark
    March 5th, 2011 at 11:38 | #36

    @Chairm
    “on the abuse of judicial review”

    LOL, judicial review is merely that, review. If you feel that judgments from he judiciary are abusive (apparently ONLY when they go against what you believe in), then you are dismissing our nations system of checks and balances. How un American of you.

  37. Chairm
    March 5th, 2011 at 18:49 | #37

    I do not oppose judicial review nor the framework of checks and balances; I oppose the abuse of it.

    When SSMers, such as yourself, support endgaming as per these pro-SSM court opinions, you exemplify the abuse of judicial review rather than the proper role of the judiciary in our form of governance.

    If dismissing that framework is unAmerican, as you say, then, you accused yourself.

  38. Sean
    March 6th, 2011 at 19:08 | #38

    “The SSM idea provides no justification for limiting SSM to twosomes of the same sex.”

    Neither does the OSM idea. Nothing about OSM limits marriage to only two people. So now what?

    “SSMers are so confused, due to the primacy of gay identity politics”

    OSMers are so confused, due to the primacy of straight identity politics. LOL.

    “I do not oppose judicial review nor the framework of checks and balances; I oppose the abuse of it.”

    Translation: if the courts don’t rule in my favor, they cheated!

  39. Chairm
    March 7th, 2011 at 18:20 | #39

    Society responds to the marriage idea; society draws line of eligiblity and ineligiblity based on the core meaning of this social institution. That response, in our society, means a line drawn against polygamy.

    The SSM idea is a rejection of the core around which such lines are drawn justly.

    That is a huge difference between the marriage idea and the SSM idea.

    * * *

    Sean, the defense of marriage does not depend on mirroring the gay identity group; but your retorts pretend that there is a mirror image with which you are arguing. The problem is that you are looking at your own reflection rather than at the actual disagreement on the marriage issue.

    Just as there is no straight identity criterion for eligiblity to marry, there is no gay criterion for ineligilbity to marry. But you are not concerned with the rights of indivduals; you are emphasizing a demand for a group right — a right that you have not justified as a group right in the first place.

    Hence your confusion.

    * * *

    I said: “I do not oppose judicial review nor the framework of checks and balances; I oppose the abuse of it.”

    Then Sean misrepresented what I actually said.

    But it is good to see that Sean is groping toward the realization that the abuse of judicial review is indeed cheating.

  40. Mark
    March 9th, 2011 at 15:05 | #40

    @Chairm
    “I do not oppose judicial review nor the framework of checks and balances; I oppose the abuse of it.”

    Oh, so it’s only abuse if you disagree with the decision?

  41. Chairm
    March 11th, 2011 at 06:16 | #41

    Nope. The abuse of judicial review is unjust no matter the decision produced.

Comments are closed.