Tuesday, March 15, 2005

The 9th (Short) Circuit...
Pity being a judge on the Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco; the very fate of Western Civilization rests upon your ability to make judgements on the most serious issues of the day. It's a great responsibility that requires reason, logic, a healthy respect for the republic, the love and protection of the law, the ability to balance the Constitution against the well-being of society.

Unfortunately, no one on that court seems able to handle the job.

Once again, the ugly spectre of gay marriage was put before the court, and once again, political correctness and the strange, wasting mental disease that affects most people in San Francisco manifested itself in the court's latest gem of jurisprudence.

The court, in a majority decision, once again ruled that California MUST allow Gay Marriages to be treated with the same respect and legal protections as traditional matrimony. To do otherwise, deigns the court, is a violation of people's civil rights every bit as pernicious as segregation and refusal of the franchise.

Once again, I am mystified as to how people can spend millions of hours in law school, decades practicing law, and still be so fucking stupid. The courts, and not just in California but nation-wide, continue to miss the point.

Their job is not to make new law but merely to interpret and enforce the law as it already exists. There is no provision in the Constitution wherein people can have everything they want solely becuse they can make enough noise about it. The only thing guarenteed by the Constitution is the pursuit of happiness --- not necessarily obtaining it. The voters of California have stated quite plainly on several occasions that they do not wish to allow homosexual marriages. Society as a whole has decided that marriage is an institution between people of different sexes --- it is the law of the land.

However, judges somehow decided that ther job is not to enforce the law but to circumvent it if it interferes with their own agendas or is contarary to their own point of view. Dissent, I'll warant, is a healthy thing. Judicial review is a marvel of our constitutional republic. But neither is of any use if the dissent and the review lead to judges overstepping their authority and overriding the will of the people.

For the 354th time let me reiterate that I am not prejudiced against homosexuals (although I do find them funny as hell). However, these arguments about gay marriage, allowing gay couples to adopt children, etc, etc, are not civil rights issues. They are temper tantrums being thrown by people who, on the one hand, wish simply to live their lives free of stigma. On the other hand, they also wish to have their lifestyle normalized, in every way, in the face of a society which is mostly disgusted and (near-)violently opposed to such normalization. It's not a legal issue: every state in the union, just about, makes some allowances with Domestic partner laws or some form of Civil Union, so in effect, gay couples do have many of the same protections as heterosexual couples. The major difference is that society will not allow them to wear a white taffeta gown, with matching shoes, and march down the isle.

The objection to gay marriage is based upon tradition and religious beilief, and society's willingness to back both of these up --- it is not based upon the law. The law merely reinforces these beliefs and traditions. Therefore, since the prohibition is not merely legal, the legal system can do nothing to interfere with it. The second the law intrudes upon those traditions and religious customs, it is guilty of what he ACLU calls "violating the seperation of church and state". When that happens, the ACLU and it's auxillaries scream bloody murder and sue everyone in sight, unless of course, the perversion of the 1st Amendment in question serves some politically correct cause. Like making sure Bruce and Lance have the opportunity to toss the bouquet.

How about a little sanity from the 9th Circuit Court? Better yet, how about we just replace all the judges on the court with people able to adjudicate the law without dragging their personal beliefs into the courtroom? Better yet, how about we start moving judges around the country based upon their geographical origin: southern judges get to rule out west, northern ones in the southwest, southwestern ones in the north and western ones in the south. Should that ever happen, judges might actually be forced to be sensitive to the requirements of the people they lord over; let's just see what would happen if a judge from San Francisco tried to rule in such a way in the south. Why, there might actually be a lynch mob outside the courthouse, and eventually, you would get a more circumspect judge. Works for me.

As for Bruce and Lance, just remember that this society is tolerant enough to let you engage in whatever behavior you desire in the privacy of your own home. If you lived in Iran, for example, you wouldn't have that priviledge -- you'd be dead. Sacrificing the piece of paper and the reception seem a small price to pay for engaging in a disgusting lifestyle in freedom, now don't they?

No comments: