I guess I just let my emotions get away from me for a second. This topic is pretty near and dear to my heart because a majority of my friends, as well as my brother, are gay, are in relationships, and live in California, and I’m so fucking sick of bigoted assholes using a book to tell them they are second class citizens.

Which is all to say, sorry about that, and I’ll keep it in mind.

There is, of course, the dreadful possibility that maybe he doesn’t. Do you support capital punishment for homosexuals, Wes?

Wes Hazlett:

“You either believe God or you do not.”

Well, there’s also a third option of believing in God, just not the sort of bigoted, jackassed God of the sort who celebrates having equally bigoted, jackassed followers. Beyond that there are lots of other options, some involving God and some not, including some that involve saying to a person reading scripture such as you have, “Dude, you’re reading it wrong.”

Well, with logic like this to fight it is no surprise Prop 8 passed.

What a crock of shit. Wes, go away.

“I would have no problem telling a couple that their marriage was not only invalid… but abomination.”

And we know that not by our own accord, we know that because Almighty God has told mankind what sin is as recorded through Scripture. God is the Judge.

You either believe God or you do not. If you believe God you understand that God calls sexual immorality a sin and homosexuality an abomination. If you do not believe God it is because you reject His authority in your life. Thank goodness for His grace and mercy that saves us wretched sinners from ourselves if we come to Him and repent, turn from our wickedness, and confess the Lord Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior.

That there are religions that would not recognize my marriage because my husband and I do not share a religion doesn’t mean they get to tell us we aren’t legally married. And that some religious people wouldn’t recognize our marriage, for that reason or because it was performed by a city official rather than a minister, doesn’t make a difference to my life.

That’s kind of what I thought…hope springs eternal, I guess.

#1. There’s a long-standing recognition of the difference between someone’s deeply rooted, firmly held, and long-lasting convictions and the passions of the moment. “Crime of passion” is a meaningful category precisely because of this, for instance – we recognize that what a person really very much wants right now may not be in accord with their overall commitments, let alone their best interests. We also recognize that people may repeatedly and in a sustained way want things that aren’t good for them. This isn’t just paternalism – we rightly talk about the clash between desire and interests with the drunkard, the workaholic neglecting their family, and the like.

When talking, therefore, about “the will of the people”, it’s entirely appropriate to make the same distinction. For instance, a lynch mob has a strong will that is nonetheless entirely illegitimate and rightly suppressed by lawful authorities. Ditto for when the masses want to commit genocide, or enshrine torture as standard operating procedure. The deeper will of the people is, as Mythago’s been explaining, expressed in constitutions, and referring to them is exactly like reminding our co-workers of how they’ve said they want to spend more time with their families and standing up to the mobs.

#2. Since, in the natural-law approach, the world has an entirely objective existence, and the only subjective part is our reactions to it, things are true even if nobody knows it. The Marianas Trench was seven miles deep before anyone went down there. If I rob you, I’ve still robbed you even if you never realize it. And this is true in law, too, according to expositors of the natural law. That is, there are rights, grants of power, restrictions, and other facts of civil life that nobody yet knows about, because nobody thought to ask.

This is what’s going on with judges basing rulings on equal-protection clauses and such. They’ve asked for the first time, “Never mind what we think of homosexuality and homosexuals, does the law provide a basis for denying them rights and services available to others?” What they found was that it doesn’t. This was a real surprise to many of the judges so ruling – like a lot of others, they’d assumed that traditional views on the proper position of homosexuals in society was reflected in the law somewhere. But they found otherwise and they properly deferred to the overarching will of the people expressed in enduring form, against whims of the moment.

The challenge for people who believe that non-straight people ought not be equal participants in social institutions and public life is to accept that they were wrong about what the law allows and commands. Then they should think really, really carefully about just how much they want to try restricting a minority’s equal standing, considering the long-term demographic and cultural evolution of the union. Christians in particular should be asking themselves if this is the measure by which they wish God’s mercy and judgment measured out to them, about whether they’re actually denying their neighbors, and about what they are doing to the least of these. Others can simply consider precedent and payback as social and legal forces.

(I believe in a universal moral law myself, but not that one. Nonetheless, I’ve read in the theory, and found a lot I agree with despite my very different premises and priorities, and think it deserves better than being the foundation of tawdry bigotry.)

We were talking about “the final say” in terms of who interprets the Constitution. The Supreme Court does. “The People” do have some influence over who is on that Supreme Court (particularly here in California, where each member of the Supreme Court is subject to vote every 12 years), but you’re taking the phrase “final say” out of the context in which we were using it.

“And you read that full minority opinion, or just that quote I inserted, and you will see that those minority judges are angry and say the majority overstepped their bounds as judges, and thus acted in bad faith.”

I have, of course, read the entirety of the dissenting opinions. I think you are reading things into those opinions that aren’t there. It’s not that hard to make a mistake of that nature. The dissent essentially says “The majority says the Constitution says X. It doesn’t. Therefore, the majority doesn’t have a basis for its decision.” (Obviously that’s an enormous oversimplification, but for our purposes, it will do). You need to understand that the dissent is expressing its OPINION on what the Constitution says. Judges don’t say “I think the Constitution says X” or “I don’t think the Constitution says X.” They say “The Constitution says X.” The “I think” or “I don’t think” is implied…which is why judicial decisions are called OPINIONS. None of the dissenters said anything remotely suggesting that they doubted that the majority honestly believed their own opinion. They absolutely did not accuse the majority of “bad faith.” Frankly, I don’t think you really understand what you are saying when you say that the majority “acted in bad faith.” What you are saying is that you think the majority does not honestly believe that the California Constitution can be interpreted in the manner in which they interpret it. There is absolutely no way that is true.

“My voice is only that is runs afoul of what the founders intended and that it does not protect gay marriage in the least. It simply goes, like Roe V. Wade, a little while longer until the tide turns.”

Well, it does protect gay marriage in that it announces that the California Constitution currently guarantees the right to marriage, including same-sex marriage. It’s possible that a future court, addressing the same issue, could overturn In re Marriage Cases…though that would be unlikely. Judges operate by a doctrine called “stare decisis,” which essentially provides (note: this is a dumbed down explanation) that previous decisions should not be overturned unless they are very obviously wrong. The reason people talk about Roe v. Wade being endangered is because there are currently four justices on the U.S. Supreme Court who believe that Roe v. Wade was very obviously wrong. But most moderate conservative judges, while they may disagree with Roe v. Wade, would not overturn Roe v. Wade because they do not believe the decision was so clearly erroneous to merit such a drastic measure. Contrary to popular belief, virtually every legal principle ever announced by any Supreme Court in the United States has never been overturned, and never will be. So it’s not like there’s just a constant back and forth about every issue whenever the political makeup of the court changes. And there won’t be with respect to marriage in California.

“Let me put it this way. The man who started wars and made our nation imperialistic, is of the same moral page of those who are angry that activist judges have acted in bad faith.”

Let me put it this way. You are apparently on that same “moral page.” The people you are describing are morons who are ruining our nation. You are siding with them. And this is an argument for your position how?

“And they are acting on that fear and on that revenge, and they will get there way … by tyranny, if they have to. And now our side, who is so willing to use tyranny to get our way, have nothing to stand on legally or morally to stop them from rampaging their way through this country to ensure their vision for America.”

Well, I have news for you. Corrupt people will use corrupt means to get what they want. The California Supreme Court is not corrupt. It’s really not even clear that legalizing gay marriage was a result that they wanted — it is, after all, a conservative court. But I, for one, will not tolerate the judicial branch of government being held hostage by the moral majority’s stupidity. What you seem to be suggesting is that high courts should not do their job — protecting people’s constitutional rights — because it might piss off the very people who seek to violate those rights. Up until now, I kinda felt bad that people on this thread have been so mean to you — I didn’t really regard your opinions as outrageously stupid (except for maybe your constant “bad faith” allegations), and I didn’t think it was quite fair for people to characterize your arguments as completely off the deep end. But this one is pretty dumb. I, for one, am proud that the California Supreme Court stood up to the asinine “activist judges” chant coming from the idiot right, and did their jobs the way they are supposed to. Unlike you, I am not afraid of the backlash. Of course there will be a backlash. These people don’t understand the fundamental principles on which our nation is based. But if we tailor our policies and our governmental practices around avoiding upsetting morons, we aren’t going to make much progress.