May 17, 2008 by Kingston
You have probably heard that Ellen DeGeneres and Portia de Rossi are getting hitched, since the California Supreme Court decided this week there are enough marriage licenses to go around:
I am sure my invitation is in the mail. However, it will be conditional. It is conditional because some people are attempting to stay the California Supreme Court's decision to open Pandora's Box of Hell. These are the same people who know that even though Ellen is America's sweetheart, Jesus would slit her throat if he was on the scene.
They want it stayed until there is a vote on a measure attempting to amend the California constitution to prohibit this godless practice. But, as I mentioned yesterday, that ship has sailed.I know there are some folks that are genuinely and sincerely concerned. But, by and large, most people are just tired of the gay baiting. And even if it doesn't sit quite right with them— this year most people have a lot bigger worries—like being able to pay their bills.
There are also some who claim not to be against same sex marriage—but think it should be up to the people. They do not seem to realize that the whole purpose of the third branch of our government is to protect minorities from the tyranny of the majority.
Fortunately, since the Fourteenth Amendment was specifically designed to protect the rights of slaves and their descendants—all courts, except some of the gomers in the Deep South of the day, knew it was impossible for a state to amend its constitution so that it specifically kept colored people in their place.If not for the Constitution and the courts, who knows how long it would have taken America to grow up.
However, the Fourteenth Amendment (and the state versions of it) does not specially mention African-Americans— it gives every single person the right to be treated equally under the law. And actually that is implied in the constitution as originally drafted.
Whenever something of significant value is at stake, the government must have a “compelling state interest” in order to treat citizens differently. The California Supreme Court agreed with the “family values” people that marriage and family are fundamental values—and then said they could not find any compelling state interest that would justify treating same sex couples and families any different than anyone else.
It has been necessary for the courts. which have ruled against same sex marriage, to get quite creative. They claim the government has a compelling state interest in promoting and licensing propagation. That is, of course, just a pretend reason—no license is required to procreate—and almost half of children are born out of wedlock. And no one has suggested that childless marriages be automatically annulled.
The California and Massachusetts Courts have actually been quite rational and traditional in their application of Constitutional Law. The other courts have been “activist” in using a novel legal theory to reach the result they want.
Anyway, the genie is out of the bottle, and though there will be much wringing of hands, it will slowly subside when the sky does not come tumbling down.
Eventually everyone will discover there is nothing more fun than a lesbian wedding.In the meantime here is a sappy rom noir video scrapbook dedicated to Ellen and Portia:
“De” girls will make nice brides.
And I do hope the California ballot proposal, which would prohibit anyone named Anne Heche from getting married, is approved.
P.S.--John McCain has been busy trying to clear up some ethical issues, and hasn't had time to weigh in on the initiative to amend the California constitution and end all this nonsense.
But, I am more interested in how everyone's boy wonder, Barack Obama, is going to deal with it. Obama has painted himself into a corner on the issue, not knowing that the Justices of the California Supreme Court would jump out and say “Boo.”What makes it interesting, is that the case really only decided if there is anything in a name. California already had a domestic registry, which conferred all of the same legal benefits upon same sex couples if they filled out the proper forms.
The Supreme Court said that , in this case, a name matters.
Obama, like Hillary Clinton, is against gay marriage and in favor of civil unions. So on this one he really should be with the Catholic League and the Forum on the Family folks, who are attempting to amend the California constitution to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman. It will not effect the statutory domestic registry.
So this will make the cool candidate sweat.
Will he be consistent and try to win favor with some of the “bitter people” by throwing gays and lesbians under the bus—with the position that it would be fine if the masses nullified a landmark civil rights decision?Or will he do a flip flop?
So far we have this from the campaign:
"Barack Obama has always believed that same-sex couples should enjoy equal rights under the law, and he will continue to fight for civil unions as President. He respects the decision of the California Supreme Court, and continues to believe that states should make their own decisions when it comes to the issue of marriage."
If I wasn't so wishy washy I think I'd run for public office.
But the gay press is not going to be satisfied with that answer—and this will irritate Obama.
Will he continue his long, self-imposed moratorium on talking with the gay press?
And some of you lawyers or constitutional scholars might be interested in helping me out on this one. I am wondering whether the initiative, if passed, will stick.
In 1964 the California Supreme Court found a housing scheme to be unconstitutionally racially discriminatory. The bigots got together and passed an initiative seeking to amend the Constitution to get discrimination back in the Constitution. Both the California and the US. Supreme Courts ruled that the state and federal constitutions prohibit that kind of crap.
Let me know what you think.
~Becky
Posted in Barack Obama, Californa, California Supreme Court, Ellen DeGeneres, GLBT, LGBT, Portia de Rossi, constitution, constitutional law, gay marriage, gay rights, lesbians, marriage, same sex marriage | Comments (1)
