on Thanksgiving: Not to be grateful for whatever you please

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.

With marriage defined as a heterosexual union (legally now, and erstwhile tacitly), nullifying the amendment does not protect marriage rights. Brown’s rationale only stands if he is allowed 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, a marriage law applies just as correctly to congress with a dog in the park—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 authority, 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. He refers to the clause, “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 mentioned only two places in the Article I: in the context of property possession …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?