Nebraska Ban on Same-Sex Marriage Struck Down
(The California legislature, which represents the 25% of the state's citizens who describe themselves as "liberal," is trying to overturn that ballot initiative, which passed in 98% of the counties in the state. But I digress.)
I think the decision is based on very questionable reasoning. (How's that for a restrained statement? I could have said it borders on being silly, but I'll hold off for now.) Eugene Volokh analyzes the decision here. I am persuaded that Volokh is right -- this decision will be overturned.
By the way, I encourage everyone to read Volokh's discussion of why Constitutional equal protection arguments are inapplicable to the gay marriage debate. Too many people throw around the words "equal protection" without really understanding the way courts use the concept in Constitutional law.
posted by Lowell Brown at 11:44 AM
|
3 Comments:
Again we're experiencing the polarizing effects on society left behind by judges who legislate from the bench... Be it school busing, abortion, gay marriage, taxes, property rights or pornography. When a judicial bench makes the decission and "settles" the issue, the loosing side is never settled and will forever resent the outcome, the process and those who orchestrated it's deliverence to the courts. (For the past 40 years this disenfranchised party happens to be the conservatives.) When an elected body legislates an outcome the loosing party will not agree with the outcome, but it will never resent the process or those who directed it's resolution. -Wagonboy
Posted by Wagonboy
Thank you for supporting God's work and God bless the USA.
Posted by Velma McFarlane
The Left argues that an amendment to the U.S. Constitution, to protect traditional marriage, is unwarranted, and that matters of marriage should be left to the State law. Then, when a State legislature acts to protect traditional marriage, as happened in Nebraska, the Left hypocritically and aggessively pursues litigation to have the statute overturned on Federal constitutional grounds.
If the Nebraska statute is unconstitutional, for the reasons cited by the District Court, then by that court's reasoning on the Equal Protection and Bill of Attainder grounds, the Federal Defense of Marriage Act must also be unconstitutional. Consequently, if the District Court is right, an amendment to the U.S. Constitution is necessary in order to allow the States to pass laws to preserve traditional marriage. The Left cannot have it both ways.
This reminds me of the debate many years ago, when a California quadriplegic woman sought the right to have her feeding tube disconnected. Conservatives argued that allowing passive euthanasia, or in this case suicide, would create a slippery slope that would end with the legalization of active euthanasia. The Left ridiculted this argument, arguing that there was a clear demarcation between passive and active euthanasia. Then, shortly after the case was decided in favor of the "right to die" by refusing life-preserving medical assistance, the same advocates who had ridiculed the slippery slope argument pointed to this case as a precedent for allowing a "right to die" employing active euthanasia. That is the process that has led to the Schiavo case.
Posted by Ralph B. Kostant
Post a Comment
<< Home