Wednesday, February 8, 2012

Religion Not Involved in Repeal of Prop 8!

In an amazing upset this week, Prop 8 was overturned, and the ruling judges never even mentioned religion in their decision! Right, I control+F-ed (searched) through 128 pages of statement and only civil marriage was mentioned, but never the word "religion," nor "discrimination," anywhere that I could find. How politically correct!

Yes, I'm really impressed by the court that recently declared Prop 8 unconstitutional. Yes! The way they worded the decision was so beauuuuuutiful;
Although the Constitution permits communities to enact most laws they believe to be desirable, in requires that there be at least a legitimate reason for the passage of a law that treats different classes of people differently. There was no such reason that Proposition 8 could have been enacted.

Interesting, right? It was only unfair because, there was no "legitimate reason" that Prop 8 should ever have been enacted. But if there was, then it would have been okay? I guess it's okay because our government can carry out the "passage of a law that treats different classes of people differently." Hmmmm. Are gay people even a class? I guess they are now a different class, because the court said so. I guess, the court could have recognized that gay people are just, you know, people, and not even a legitimately different social class, who should ever be separate from other people in the law's eyes, but, that would have been addressing a "broader issue," and;
Broader issues have been urged for our consideration, but we adhere to the principle of deciding constitutional questions only in the contest of the particular case before the Court.

So, they couldn't ever decide that gay people deserve all the same rights as non-gay people, UNLESS there was somehow a "particular case before the Court." What would that case look like? It would have to be about someone claiming it was unconstitutional to treat gays as a separate class of people, right? Maybe because they were unnecessarily denied something given to other people?

Hmmm, it's too bad we don't have any cases like that for them to give a decision on! Maybe, one day...


  1. Honestly I don't think marriage should be a government regulated or condoned institution at all. If we completely abolished government recognition of marriage it would solve sooooo many problems.

  2. But abolishing it would also create a whole new set of problems too.
    Marriage should not be abolished-it should be extended to encompass the entire population of consenting adults.

    Regarding the court's decision-it reads to me like this.
    "Well we all know those gays and lesbos aren't 'Real Americans' but we just don't have a way to legitimately disenfranchise them so we have to include them."
    How heart warming.

    You know this will go to the SCOTUS next.
    But it won't be a ruling for the nation-just for the state of California.
    Nevertheless-I will be watching.

    Thanks for doing a write up on this.

  3. I agree that if religious people are going to claim ownership of the word "marriage," we can effectively destroy that argument by removing the term marriage, and legally only recognizing civil unions for everyone. I know many Americans would then feel upset that they could not be "married" in the eyes of the government, but hey, you can't have your cake and eat it too. Either civil unions for everyone or civil marriage for everyone, either is good in my book.