Californians from both camps will rally to the cry of protecting marriage rights, but when the man issuing the call has the power to redefine “marriage” at his will, no legal action on the people’s part can ensure their protection. It is in the name of protecting marriage rights that California Attorney General Jerry Brown pushes for the repeal of the latest constitutional amendment, which defines marriage to be between man and woman.
Brown’s rationale that our current legal definition of marriage encroaches upon marriage rights can be true only if he is permitted to redefine words whenever he pleases—a practice former President Clinton raised to a high art in his peculiar use of the word “is.” If we sanction this exercise of doublespeak, then a marriage law applies just as correctly to congress with a dog in the park as to a member of the opposite sex—provided that the dog be consenting and of age. Whether that age be considered in dog years or human years must vary from court to court, however, because under Jerry Brown’s philosophy, words do not have meanings in legal settings.
Today’s paper quotes Brown to say that he now finds the latest amendment at variance with the declaration of basic freedoms in Article I of the Constitution: “All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.” Does this constitute legal grounds for him to exercise his will in affairs of marriage? The fact is that marriage is mentioned in only two places in Article I: in the context of property ownership …and in the Prop. 8 amendment. There is no legal ground to impute Prop. 8 with violation of the Constitution.
Equality of rights has been called into question, nevermind that from a legal standpoint, homosexuals have and always will have equal marriage rights with heterosexuals: to wit, any man may marry a woman, and any woman may marry a man. Say it’s not fair, a person cannot choose the object of his or her attraction? If I am a pedophile, bestialist, polygamist, or practicer of incest will you make legal recognition of the morality of my union?
Saturday, December 20, 2008
Attorney General to Nullify Constitutional Amendment
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Another frightening aspect of this is giving a court the power to rule a part of the California constitution (enacted according to the rules laid out in the California constitution) as being unconstitutional. At that point the constitution ceases to be a protection for the people against the excesses of government and becomes a façade for undemocratic rule. What should be a very difficult document to alter, because of its far-reaching affects, becomes malleable to the whims and fashions (and prejudices) of the seven members of the California Supreme Court. This undermines the sovereignty of the people as well as producing a serious imbalance in the branches of government.
ReplyDeleteJerry Brown is sending the message to the people of California, "Well, we gave you the opportunity to vote on this. But you voted wrong. So now we're going to have to fix it." This is only a step away from, "Vote in favor of X or we'll make you vote in favor of X." And that's not democracy. That's totalitarianism.
I agree completely and need add nothing to your statement. Thanks.
ReplyDelete