That may well soon be the question. Typical liberal Jerry Brown “reasoning” has now caused the California Attorney General (hasn’t this man held just about every position there is to hold in the Loon State? He’s been governor, mayor of Oakland, now AG, and I’m sure I’m missing something) to reverse field and determine that he will petition the Supreme Court of California to overturn the legal, duly determined Proposition 8 passed by California voters, which declares simply that marriage is between one man and one woman.
But of course, in our zany society, in which some think they are smarter than thousands of years of recorded history and can make marriage a malleable, define-it-as-you-please institution, there are people who hold the preposterous position that two people of the same sex ought to be considered to be married to each other. Further, they ground this belief in the idea that it somehow denies fundamental human rights to individuals if they are not allowed this privilege. Here’s how Jerry puts it: “The amendment-initiative process does not encompass a power to abrogate fundamental constitutional rights without a compelling justification,” he wrote. “Proposition 8 lacks such a justification.”
Nobody’s “rights” are being trampled at all. My long-term readers will recognize that I’ve long advocated that people who identify themselves as homosexual ought to be treated equally before the law. It’s not the state’s business if you want your “partner” at your bedside when you’re sick, or who you want to leave your money to when you die. I supported “don’t ask, don’t tell” when hardly anyone on the “conservative” side of the equation did (of course, that’s not good enough now; another issue altogether). But such rights can be—indeed, ought to be—secured by other means rather than the fundamental altering of the definition of the institution of marriage.
Which is what this is.
But there’s a further question regarding Prop 8, and these efforts to overturn the will of the people: if, after going through constitutional process provided legally for the residents of California, a small group of liberal do-gooders determines to nonetheless void this decision, why should anyone in California regard any law in that state worthy of respect and obedience? To overturn Prop 8 would be to establish lawlessness as the coin of the realm; the law would no longer be worthy of respect, in my opinion (and readers, don’t go Romans 13 on me at this point; just hear me out).
Contempt of court? You’re darn straight. Guilty.
Because the entire legal process, should Jerry Brown get his way, will be rendered without validity in the state of California.
And that being the case, every person in the state should hope and pray that Jerry Brown doesn’t get his way.