Interesting development:
Attorneys general from ten states on Friday asked the California Supreme Court to delay until November its ruling implementing legal same-sex marriages.
The attorneys general, all Republicans, said if the ruling is implemented on schedule on June 17, the states would be subjected to lawsuits from homosexual couples married in California who seek to have their unions recognized in their home states, the San Francisco Chronicle reports.
“An inevitable result of such ‘marriage tourism’ will be a steep increase in litigation” over whether the couple’s home state must recognize their marriage, said Utah Attorney General Mark Shurtleff, who authored the brief. Shurtleff said delaying the implementation of the ruling would save other states from “premature, unnecessary, unnecessarily difficult, and therefore unduly burdensome litigation in our courts.”
The attorneys general of Alaska, Colorado, Florida, Idaho, Michigan, Nebraska, New Hampshire, South Carolina and South Dakota joined the brief.
Each of the ten states has legally banned the recognition of same-sex marriages contracted elsewhere. Unlike Massachusetts, where homosexual marriages have also been legalized, California allows residents of other states to marry even if the marriage would not be legal in their home state.
California voters could overturn the state Supreme Court’s decision in the November 3 election with a constitutional amendment that would declare only opposite-sex marriages to be valid. Sponsors of the amendment have submitted petitions bearing 1.1 million signatures, about 400,000 more signatures than required to qualify for the state ballot.
Is this part of a strategy? Colorado, Florida, Michigan and New Hampshire are all set to be battleground States in the fall, and the race will probably be close enough that one or two States can decide it…making California’s judicial usurpation on the issue of gay marriage is an excellent way to nationalise the issue for the electoin; a way of letting people know just how high the stakes are in 2008, because if you like what the CA Supreme Court did, then you’ll love what Obama’s US Supreme Court nominees will do.
Time will tell, but this campaign is going to be a very interesting race.
Tags: gay marriage, judicial tyranny
June 4th, 2008
This is getting absurd:
Parents’ hopes of quick reunions with more than 400 children removed from a polygamist sect’s ranch were dashed Friday after their attorneys and a judge clashed over proposed restrictions.
A decision by Texas District Judge Barbara Walther means that to regain custody, the 38 mothers whose filed the complaint that led the Texas Supreme Court to reject the state’s massive seizure must personally sign an agreement their attorneys and state child-welfare officials have proposed…
…The high court on Thursday affirmed an appeals court ruling ordering Walther to reverse her decision last month putting all children from the Yearning For Zion Ranch into foster case. The Supreme Court and the appeals court rejected the state’s argument that all the children were in immediate danger from what it said was a cycle of sexual abuse of teenage girls at the ranch…
…Under the deal CPS released, the families won’t be able to leave Texas until Aug. 31 but would be allowed to move back to the ranch. It also calls for parenting classes and visits by CPS to interview children and parents in the child abuse investigation.
Walther wanted to remove the August deadline and provide for psychological evaluations of the children. She also wanted it specified that parents can’t travel more than 60 miles from their residence without 48 hours’ notice. She also wanted CPS to have access to the ranch and the children at all times necessary for any investigation.
The judge has been ordered to reverse her decision. No indictment has been brought. No actual evidence of criminal activity - other than polygamy, which isn’t the fault of the children - has come forth. No one has been convicted…and yet an allegedly American judge wants to treat these mothers as if they were criminals in the custody of their children. Can’t leave the State? Must submit to psychological testing? Must allow CPS people to barge in at all times? Can’t travel more than 60 miles without advance notice? Is this the State of Texas, or the USSR? What the F is going on here?
This must not be allowed to stand - this is judicial tyranny at its worst; this is a threat to all families, everywhere. It is turn this back - and turn this judge out - or at the whim of a judge a family can be destroyed.
Tags: FLDS, judicial tyranny, polygamy, religious liberty
May 31st, 2008
Then you will be pleased with the result regardless of how it is achieved. Gay Patriot seems very pleased with the recent California Supreme Court ruling overturning California law regarding what makes a marriage - and seems doubly pleased by this article noting that, ultimately, it has been Republicans who appointed the Justice who made it all possible. But there is this part of the article which is very disturbing for anyone who claims any sort of conservative world view, as Gay Patriot does - and so I hope I’ve misinterpreted Gay Patriot’s views, but here goes:
Schwarzenegger probably understood well the political culture of the judicial appointments when he vetoed gay-marriage bills in 2005 and 2007. “Schwarzenegger obviously sat down and thought it through,” says Darry Sragow, a Democratic political strategist. “[The vetoes] may have been a clever way to get around his party.”
Schwarzenegger has consistently stuck to one political line: He would never sign a gay-marriage bill that would overturn the voters’ will on Proposition 22, which defines marriage as a formal union between one man and one woman, and he would abide by the courts’ rulings if that ballot measure were found unconstitutional. State Democrats still attempted to force his hand, but Schwarzenegger refused to be outmaneuvered.
“I was certainly disappointed [in 2007],” says Assemblyman Mark Leno, who twice introduced the same-sex-marriage bill. “Here was a historic chance to embrace equality, and the governor failed us a second time.”
By 2007, though, it was becoming clear that gay-marriage lawsuits would almost certainly be headed for the California State Supreme Court. Schwarzenegger, who could not be reached for comment, may have waited for things to play out in the state’s highest court, as Darry Sragow suggests, knowing that at least a majority of the judges were social moderates with an old-fashioned Republican/libertarian streak — the kind of mindset that believes government should stay out of people’s pocketbooks and bedrooms.
According to Republican strategist Arnold Steinberg, this scenario isn’t all that hard to believe. “Schwarzenegger was always a closet (no pun intended) supporter of gay marriage,” writes Steinberg in an e-mail to the Weekly. “So he was probably happy to have an excuse to at least stay neutral, or, now, to actually oppose the November ballot measure.”
On the day of the Supreme Court’s ruling, Schwarzenegger released this statement: “I respect the court’s decision and as governor, I will uphold its ruling. Also, as I have said in the past, I will not support an amendment to the constitution that would overturn this state Supreme Court ruling.”
What respect I had for Schwarzenegger is completely gone, if this is the actual scenario (and it does ring true). If you think that gay marriage should be legal, you should just come right out and say that - to do a political dance about it with a mind towards allowing un-elected judges to get you off the political hook is cowardice…and, also, destructive of our form of government. And that is what is so disturbing about someone as smart as Gay Patriot being pleased here…I can understand a person being happy his side won, but it should be kept in mind that what the Courth hath given, the Court may taketh away…meaning that if one Justice is later replaced by someone of a different view, then a new case on this issue could result in an exactly opposite ruling. No, the only sure way to enshrine something in American law is to go through the proper, constitutional procedures for modifying the law…to have four judges decide for everyone else is to trust tyranny to give you what you can’t get from the people. I’d rather trust the people, thanks very much.
This now will go before the people, and the gay marriage advocates are quite certain of defeating the ballot initiative to overturn this judicial usurpation - and they may be right. California is a pretty liberal State…on the other hand, I also know plenty of otherwise liberal people who are opposed to gay marriage. Call it what you will, but there seems to be an inherent distrust amongst the people for the very concept of two people of the same sex getting married. If, as I expect, the ballot initiative wins, then where will the advocates of gay marriage in California be? Behind the 8 ball - having to not just argue their case, but also go through the very long and difficult process of first repealing this initiative before they can get anything else done. The ‘hip hip hooray’ of May is foolhardy - and I do believe that the underlying conservative impulse of the American majority - even in California - is going to smack this down quite hard.
In the end, one either believes in America and its way of life, or one doesn’t - if one believes, then one has to accept the whole kit and kaboodle, including especially those parts least liked. To me, gay marriage is an absurdity - a pure negation of what marriage is for (it isn’t for love, dear people; neither is it for tax breaks…love and tax breaks are benefits of marriage, not the reasons for having it). I’ll fight against it - but I’ll also lay down a marker: just as soon as gay marriage advocates start advocating a ban on no-fault divorce, then I’ll start considering a modification of my position towards theirs. My brief, you see, is to strengthen marriage and family…and if I can get a bit of that by graciously giving in to an odd request or two, I’ll do it. On the other hand, I know I’m quite safe here…because gay rights people, for the most part, are of the left and thus will never, ever contemplate any action which actually makes people live up to their promise.
Meanwhile, those advocates of gay marriage who care at all about America should be outraged by this judicial usurpation - they can, of course, in good conscience fight against the November initiative to overturn, but they should also be demanding that the Court reverse itself, and leave it to the people to decide when the current California laws regarding marriage should be modified, and how.
UPDATE: Apology is due - Gay Patriot let me know that his view is in opposition to the judicial usurpation:
Mark — you actually did misrepresent my view of the California decision. Both myself and my co-blogger (CA resident, Dan) oppose judicial fiat against the will of the people.
I only posted the article you referenced as a way to piss off the liberal gays who constantly trash Republicans and label them as “bigots” because they oppose marriage.
I am delighted that I’m an idiot vis a vis Gay Patriot’s position - I’ve long respected him as a fellow American, blogger, thinker and conservative. I offer my heartfelt and complete apology, and my promise in future to get off the lazy duff and actually ask for clarification before I jump to conclusions.
Tags: gay marriage, judicial tyranny
May 24th, 2008
