California Dreamin'

Yesterday a judge in California ruled on a lawsuit and found no reasonable cause to deny same-sex couples the right to marry. This is good news, and the judge is right.

"The state's protracted denial of equal protection cannot be justified simply because such constitutional violation has become traditional," Kramer wrote. "Simply put, same-sex marriage cannot be prohibited solely because California has always done so before."

The wingers went crazy.

"For a single judge to rule there is no conceivable purpose for preserving marriage as one man and one woman is mind-boggling," said Liberty Counsel President Mathew Staver.

Of course Mr. Staver does not detail why it is "mind-boggling", just that it is.

It's quite easy to logically rebut any argument against same-sex marriage. The word "traditional" is used a lot, however the style of heterosexual marriage we have today is anything but traditional. You can actually pick the person you want to marry. You are, generally, not forced to marry against your will, and it's generally a 2 person marriage - unless you are a Mormon living at "the compound".

In other words, the style of marriage we have in the United States today is not traditional by any means. You marry who you want. You divorce when you want - just as long as they are the opposite sex.

The other argument the wingers use is "procreation". Marriage is for children, etc. That argument is silly in itself. So silly, in fact, that it makes me laugh. The judge's ruling stated:

"One does not have to be married in order to procreate, nor does one have to procreate in order to be married," he wrote. "Thus, no legitimate state interest to justify the preclusion of same-sex marriage can be found."

What would have been really amusing is if the judge ruled that all existing marriages that are childless be immediately dissolved, and anyone over, say 50 years old, is not allowed to marry because they can't create new children. That would be hilarious.

Naturally there is a disturbing element to the news.

Assemblyman Ray Haynes, a Republican, predicted the judge's ruling would spur efforts to amend the state Constitution to ban gay nuptials, as was done in 13 other states last year.

Haynes has introduced a bill to place such a constitutional amendment on the November ballot, but if the Democrat-controlled Legislature defeats it, he said gay marriage opponents would accomplish the task themselves by petition.

"This ruling demonstrates absolutely what we have to do, which is to amend the Constitution so that we can take the question out of the hands of any judge anywhere at any time," he said.

Most people don't realize that technically, we don't live in a democracy. This country's form of government is a constitutional republic. That is a very important distinction.

The reason that's important is because if this were a strict democracy, inter-racial couples would probably not be allowed to marry today. It was an "activist judge" in California that started the process of repealing anti-miscongeniation laws in California, 20 years before the Supreme Court did the same. When the Supreme Court finally struck down the ban on inter-racial marriage in the late 60's, there were more American's opposed to the ruling then oppose same-sex marriage today.

That little factoid is often missed when discussing the topic.

If the decision had been left up to the American citizens, by an overwhelming majority, inter-racial marriage would be illegal. In other words, sometimes judges have to save a minority group of American's from the idiot majority group.

Today, not many people think inter-racial marriage is wrong. The same will be true of same-sex marriage in 20 years or so. The difference is these Constitutional amendments. They are effectively saying "we're really stupid and we don't want any judge to say we're stupid. We like being stupid." It takes the decision out of a rational person's hands, and puts it squarely in the hands of the American public. We all know how that will turn out. Most American's are bigoted, racist, and sexist. They don't deserve a vote on the subject.

Ultimately, what I think will happen is the case will end up at the Supreme Court. They will rule to strike down any laws prohibiting same-sex marriage, and that will nullify the state Constitution prohibitions. That is, as long as there is no US Constitutional amendment barring it. Bush had pushed it during the election, but it's a dead issue that isn't going anywhere.

In the meantime, one small victory against the BSC's.

** update **

It turns out that the "activist judge" who ruled in favor of same-sex marriage yesterday is a Catholic Republican appointee.