August 5th, 2010

Proposition 8: The Allegedly Unconstitutional Constitutional Amendment

photo credit: sammyd0971

Yesterday’s decision by Judge Walker, Chief Judge of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, in favor of homosexual marriage advocates is the conclusion of the latest battle in the war against “traditional” marriage. Walker’s decision comes after a 2.5 week trial in January where 16 witnesses were summoned by Proposition 8 opponents, and two were summoned by proponents.

As review, voters in California last November gave their support in favor of Proposition 8 by a 52.3% margin, thus overturning a California Supreme Court decision that effectively struck down Proposition 22, passed a decade earlier, declaring marriage in California as being between a man and a woman. Proposition 8 placed the same language (“Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.”) into the state’s constitution itself, thus circumventing the Supreme Court’s declaration of unconstitutionality.

(Federal) Judge Walker, however, yesterday declared Proposition 8 unconstitutional—not compared to California’s Constitution, but that of the United States of America. The decision rests on two separate but similar arguments, namely, that the newly-enacted amendment to the California Constitution violates both the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses in the 14th amendment.

Specifically, Judge Walker (who is homosexual) declares that there is a “fundamental right to marry” (p. 111), and Proposition 8’s exclusion of homosexual marriage therefore violates the Due Process Clause. He also declares that one’s sexual orientation does not provide a “rational basis” (pp. 130-1) and thus violates the Equal Protection Clause. Summarizing, Walker states (p. 135):

Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license. Indeed, the evidence shows Proposition 8 does nothing more than enshrine in the California Constitution the notion that opposite-sex couples are superior to same-sex couples. Because California has no interest in discriminating against gay men and lesbians, and because Proposition 8 prevents California from fulfilling its constitutional obligation to provide marriages on an equal basis, the court concludes that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional.

This ruling, of course, plays fast and loose with the very point of Proposition 8: to define just what marriage is, according to state law. Having narrowly defined marriage as being between a man and a woman, California would have been able to provide said marriages on an equal basis to all eligible/applicable parties, with no thought of discrimination.

But marriage, many argue, is some supposed “fundamental right” to which all individuals should be entitled. Walker supplies a precedent-based judicial formula for determining when a right is fundamental (p. 111):

To determine whether a right is fundamental under the Due Process Clause, the court inquires into whether the right is rooted “in our Nation’s history, legal traditions, and practices.”

And here we have our starting point. To begin our analysis, and inevitable rebuttal, let’s first envision a situation in which government is completely abolished. In absence of government, individuals are left to their own devices to protect their life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. Without government dictating what rights are and are not fundamental or legitimate, we must ask: what rights do these individuals have?

Clearly, an individual in this scenario cannot have a fundamental right to marriage, as marriage (as we now know it) does not exist; government does not exist, and therefore cannot regulate this matter. Churches may offer such a ceremony as a religious rite, but are free to decide what rules they will impose; homosexuals in this case would not have a fundamental right to a ceremony that nobody would administer to them.

In absence of government, then, the only and true fundamental right is that of association. Two homosexuals would be able to co-habit and devote their lives to one another to their heart’s content, just as they are free to do today. This freedom of association is the only fundamental right, as marriage—whether regulated by government, or exclusively administered by churches—is an external sanction of a pre-existing relationship. Despite what some black-robed lawyers have said, there is no fundamental right to marry. Neither should we be determining what somebody’s real rights are based on “history, legal traditions, and practices.” Are our standards and principles so neutered that we have sacrificed self-evident truths for precedent and policy?

But back to the core arguments in light of the 14th amendment—arguments which Walker asserts are “independently meritorious, as Proposition 8 both unconstitutionally burdens the exercise of the fundamental right to marry and creates an irrational classification on the basis of sexual orientation.”

This decision, or other decisions regarding this and other referenda, have often been outright dismissed by those who voted in favor of the law in question. “Judges should not overturn the will of the people!,” they argue. Case in point: Austin R. Nimocks, senior legal counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund who fought to uphold Proposition 8 in Walker’s court, vowed to appeal yesterday’s ruling, saying “We’re obviously disappointed that the judge did not uphold the will of over 7 million Californians who made a decision in a free and fair democratic process.”

But this is patently absurd, for those who in some cases support the rule of law and republican government, in this case support direct democracy—regardless of whether the law in question has violated the Constitution. Rather than decrying judges for deciding against them, these individuals should be addressing the constitutional merits of the law(s) they support. If the judges overturn the constitutional will of the people, then yes, we have a problem (and an “activist” judge).

So, first up: the Due Process Clause. This clause reads:

…nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.

Due process, in English common law and American law (pre-FDR), was a limited procedural guarantee—a process whereby individuals were properly informed of the criminal charges against them and were given the opportunity to defend themselves. Alexander Hamilton, for example, despite his expansionist interpretation of most governmental powers, stated this in regards to the New York Bill of Rights’ inclusion of the term “due process”: “The words ‘due process’ have a precise technical import, and are only applicable to the process and proceedings of the courts of justice; they can never be referred to an act of legislature(emphasis added).

Since FDR’s time, the courts have conjured up what’s called “substantive due process”, whereby the court will determine if any government action infringes upon certain “fundamental rights”. Thus, due process has now been warped into applying to all legal processes for all government agencies in both criminal and civil law.

It is only in this extremely loose interpretation and understanding of “due process” that the supposed “fundamental right” to marry can have any defense, for Walker’s assertion—that denying homosexuals their “fundamental right” to marry each other violates the individual’s right to due process under the law—can only be valid if “due process” means something altogether different than what it once did.

Next up: the Equal Protection Clause. This clause reads:

…nor [shall any State] deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Access to a marital union does not provide any additional protections. One can argue that it does, however, provide for certain government-bestowed privileges, such as tax-breaks, visitation rights, inheritance, etc. In these cases, however, many state governments have conferred similar privileges upon “civil unions”, thus giving those benefits to couples generally, while still retaining the man/woman definition of marriage.

Whether or not a state has such a classification with the same legal benefits as marriage, one cannot reasonably argue that an individual is not being protected by law by being denied access to a certain governmental certification. Equal protection under the law refers to a defensive shield against punitive government action, ensuring that governments punish and enforce the laws equally, regardless of race, gender, sexual preference, or what type of junk food one likes. Just as the blind man who is denied a drivers license still enjoys equal protection under the law, though he is not able to receive said license, so too do homosexual individuals remain protected by laws even when denied the ability to have their companionship sanctioned by the government.

Interestingly, Judge Walker includes in his decision an explanation of when he, as a judge, would defer to the public’s decision rather than enforce his own. On page 118 of the opinion, Walker states:

The court defers to legislative (or in this case, popular) judgment if there is at least a debatable question whether the underlying basis for the classification is rational.

Walker, a homosexual, simply dismisses the classification (that marriage can be applied only to heterosexuals) because he deems its basis “irrational”. Thus, he refuses to defer judgement to the people (who decided that such a classification was rational and important) and pronounces his own. On this foundation of his personal decision, then, Walker looks to the clauses we have here analyzed for support of his belief that California’s constitutional amendment is unconstitutional.

Again, rather than appealing to self-evident truths and inalienable rights, Walker and his like-minded judicial colleagues divine “fundamental rights” out of thin air when these have some historical precedent in our country. “Plaintiffs seek to have the state recognize their committed relationships,” Walker states on page 113, “and plaintiffs’ [homosexual] relationships are consistent with the core of the history, tradition and practice of marriage in the United States(emphasis added).

In response to Walker’s ruling, Rea Carey, executive director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, stated: “This ruling marks a victory for loving, committed couples who want nothing more than the same rights and security as other families. From the start, this has been about basic fairness.” This, too, is argued poorly, for couples do not have rights, nor do any associations of individuals; we in America do not enjoy our rights because of a relationship with another person, but because we are individuals. While heterosexual marriages are associated with certain government-regulated privileges, these are not rights—as explained previously, the only right is one of free association, which individuals of any sexual preference enjoy.

Homosexual couples desiring society’s sanctioning of their union are not being criminally prosecuted or punished in any way, thus the true meaning of due process does not apply, and they are as equally protected under the law as are children, widowed seniors, and heterosexual couples. Walker’s arguments rely on an expansionist, neo-liberal interpretation of the U.S. Constitution that, while supported by precedent, is not supported by a simple and sincere interpretation of the law.

That a homosexual judge in San Francisco would rule against Proposition 8 is not surprising to anybody. The funny thing about black-robed lawyers is that when we agree with their opinions, we extol them as stalwart defenders of liberty, but when we disagree, we label them judicial activists overriding the will of the people and individual rights.

This, of course, is the danger of allowing the government to define, regulate, and micro-manage marriage. In the end, Walker’s ruling is fairly inconsequential as the appeal is already underway, and the ninth circuit court will soon hear the case.

31 Responses to “Proposition 8: The Allegedly Unconstitutional Constitutional Amendment”

  1. Sarah
    August 5, 2010 at 10:26 am #

    Something else that is of interest is this fact: Homosexual cilvil union couples in California already enjoy all the same privileges and sanction of the government as marriage in California does–the only difference was definition. Civil unions are equal to marriage under California recognition and privileges.

    This whole debate is over whether they can call it and force the public by governmental sanction to call it”marriage”.

    California Assembly Bill 205, passed:

    “This bill would extend the rights and duties of marriage to
    persons registered as domestic partners on and after January 1, 2005.”

    California Family Code:
    “297.5. (a) Registered domestic partners shall have the same rights,
    protections, and benefits, and shall be subject to the same
    responsibilities, obligations, and duties under law, whether they
    derive from statutes, administrative regulations, court rules,
    government policies, common law, or any other provisions or sources
    of law, as are granted to and imposed upon spouses.”

  2. Mark N.
    August 5, 2010 at 11:06 am #

    Sarah, why is separate-but-equal good enough for you?

    Maybe gays should have separate drinking fountains, too?

    If it really is equal, then they should be allowed to use the word marriage. If it’s not equal, then own up to the fact that you don’t want it to be equal and that you’re glad it’s not equal.

  3. Jeffrey T
    August 5, 2010 at 11:29 am #

    My personal opinion is that the government shouldn’t be licensing marriages at all. It is a religious ritual and personal commitment. If one wants to demonstrate visitation rights and inheritance rights to the person they’ve ritually committed to, the law already has contracts in place to allow for that. Licensing marriage allows the government to control, define your ritual/commitment, and to coerce others into acknowledging your ritual/commitment.

  4. LordJeb
    August 5, 2010 at 11:30 am #

    Can a constitutional amendment really be overturned on the grounds that it is unconstitutional? Perhaps if the process were shown to be unconstitutional… For example I don’t really believe that a simple majority of voters should be able to amend a Constitution. But if the process is valid, then the newly passed amendment IS the Constitution, and cannot possibly be invalidated by itself. If we amended the Constitution of the U.S. to remove the First Amendment, the SCOTUS shouldn’t be able overturn it, because it is NOW the Constitution.

    • Connor
      August 5, 2010 at 11:33 am #

      LordJeb, the argument made by Walker is that the California constitutional amendment is unconstitutional because of the U.S. Constitution, not CA’s Constitution itself. So it’s a comparison between two documents, not one provision of a document against itself.

  5. sloanie
    August 5, 2010 at 11:31 am #


    If men and women are equal, then men should be able to use the word woman to describe themselves for any purpose.

    They may both be humans but they are fundamentally different. Because we distinguish them by name doesn’t mean someone’s being persecuted for the way they are.

  6. Tanner@Art of Citizenship
    August 5, 2010 at 11:44 am #

    Sarah, you’re offering up the logical fallacy of limited choice. It’s not only one or the other in this case. Gay marriage is not about legal rights – civil unions already accomplish that. It’s about forcing the rest of society to validate a union they would otherwise be free to accept or decline.

  7. Gdub
    August 5, 2010 at 12:18 pm #

    You bring up several good points. The whole “activist judges” is a weak and feeble argument; essential meaningless. More important is to point to the fact that the ruling does not square with the constitution.

    In simple terms, the US Constitution NEVER strays into deciding any matter of belief or thoughts. That is because law can only judge action. This ruling sets a frightening precedent that allows courts to rule based not on sex (an outward and provable state), but instead based on sexuality (an inward and unprovable state).

    By extension, it opens up the possibility to rule laws unconstitutional based on a person’s religious beliefs or political leanings. That’s deeply unsettling.

  8. rmwarnick
    August 5, 2010 at 1:59 pm #

    The 14th Amendment is very clear and easy to understand.

    Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

    (emphasis added)

  9. Jim Davis
    August 5, 2010 at 4:11 pm #

    I’m with Jeffrey. Government shouldn’t be licensing marriage (licensing is granting permission). Why should anyone need permission from their government to enter a contract with another consenting adult? The only legitimate role I see, when it comes to government’s relationship to marriage, is the enforcement/punishment affixed to individuals who break their marital contract.

  10. Pam
    August 5, 2010 at 6:54 pm #

    In simple terms, the US Constitution NEVER strays into deciding any matter of belief or thoughts. That is because law can only judge action. This ruling sets a frightening precedent that allows courts to rule based not on sex (an outward and provable state), but instead based on sexuality (an inward and unprovable state).

    By extension, it opens up the possibility to rule laws unconstitutional based on a person’s religious beliefs or political leanings.

    Interesting thought, Gdub. A good one.

    How does this compare with “hate crimes” legislation already passed which judges perpetrators of crimes based on their presumed “hate”. In other words, legislation based on what may be in someone’s mind (inward and not provable) is already on the books.

  11. James
    August 5, 2010 at 10:33 pm #

    People like judge Walker are trying to make us believe that gender is completely and utterly meaningless, and no longer has any significance.

    Unfortunately for him, many of us still understand that both men and women have inherently unique traits and characteristics which are valuable to a relationship.

    It’s like a peanut butter and jelly sandwich. Man is to peanut butter as woman is to jelly. You can’t spread peanut butter on both pieces then slap ’em together and give it to a kid and say, here’s your PB&J sandwich! He’ll think you’re crazy. It’s not a PB&J if there’s only peanut butter on both slices of bread.

    What makes PB&J so great (speaking first hand) is combining the salty peanut butter with the sweet jelly!

  12. Jeffrey T
    August 6, 2010 at 1:57 am #

    Jim Davis,

    In my view, there would be no legally enforceable “marital” contract. Marriage is a covenant, symbolized in ritual. Any enforceable contract would be an inheritance contract, or visitation rights, or something that looks similar to a civil union.

  13. Russ
    August 6, 2010 at 10:24 am #

    I’m beginning to wonder if this was done intentionally by a judge. It reminds me of an episode of Boston Legal (yes, I know it’s TV).

    The judge in the case basically made a ruling that was a little excessive on it’s interpretation, and the reason he did so was to basically ensure that a higher court would hear the case.

    If this case can get sent to the Supreme Court, the chances of burying this issue go way up, and it may seem he believes it will happen. On the other hand, the Supreme Court is more cautious about making outright rulings of whether something is constitutional or not. They generally stick to clauses and make statements about rights as to not do something that could impact 200+ years of rulings with one sweep.

  14. Marc
    August 6, 2010 at 10:42 am #

    As Americans we have always held that “rights” originate with God, that he is the author of them. Rights do not come from govt’. With this in mind, does anyone really think he gave man a right to a homosexual marriage? He gives them free agency to choose homosexuality, but he does not recognize any “right” to gay marriage. Marriage has been and always will be between a man and woman. If homosexuals want to have some sort of union then that is up to them, But dont call it marriage, because it is certainly not that.

    One of the reasons America is in decline is because we have forgotten that our rights come from God and not from man. If this is true (and it is), then there is no “right” to gay marriage. A “right” to gay marriage is a construct of man and therefore is not a “right” at all

  15. Matt
    August 6, 2010 at 10:30 pm #

    I find humor in all of this.

    Some limited-government-ites believe that government should not be in the business of regulating marriage (many have already expressed this in foregoing comments). They think it should be left as a religious rite. Great. I probably agree with that.

    Here’s the humor I see: Meanwhile, other limited-government-ites and/or Republicans/self-proclaimed moral conservatives, find ways to justify the government’s and/or the people’s regulation and definition of the institution of marriage because seeing gays or lesbians wed is in conflict with their religious tenets. In other words, “Small government if it hurts me, my guns, or my commerce; big government if it suits me and/or my moral persuasions.” What’s it going to be? Big gov’t or small?

    On a different note:

    Connor asserts in this post that if marriage were left entirely to religion, gays and lesbians would not be able to find anyone to wed them.

    homosexuals in this case would not have a fundamental right to a ceremony that nobody would administer to them.

    Really? I hardly agree. Numerous churches and religious organizations are anxiously awaiting the opportunity to wed same-sex couples.

    My point in all of this… what a waste of time and energy as we all go around arguing with one another about semantics and dogma. Is fighting the definition of a word really worth the millions of dollars and hours that are being spent on it? Gay people are going to be gay no matter what. Connor pointed that out quite nicely. Let’s all accept that homosexuality is not going to go away, ever. It is an ancient and modern reality. True, it may have been “Adam and Eve,” not “Adam and Steve,” if you believe Bible lore, but Adam and Eve probably had gay grand kids or at least gay great-grandkids if we look at statistics.
    Let’s move away from ideological fanaticism and spend our time debating more substantive and consequential topics like whether or not the government orchestrated the implosion of the World Trade Center. (That’s sarcasm for those who may not have noticed.) Ready, set, commence lambasting…

  16. mormonlibertarian
    August 7, 2010 at 12:12 pm #

    another perspective. I personally believe that self-restraint is always wise, but I think this discussion in “Christian”/pro-family values circles is a distraction from never-ceasing wars.

    I feel dismayed about this social issue; I think that compassion is important, but I fear for the boys and girls who will be exploited.


    by libertarian “guidelines” there is already too much government intervention.

  17. Constitution Statesman
    August 8, 2010 at 9:18 pm #

    “Without government dictating what rights are and are not fundamental or legitimate, we must ask: what rights do these individuals have?

    Clearly, an individual in this scenario cannot have a fundamental right to marriage, as marriage (as we now know it) does not exist; government does not exist, and therefore cannot regulate this matter.”

    Am I to understand from this statement that you believe that rights do not exist in the absence of government? Rights indeed exist because they are innate and inherent to our humanity and come from our creator. We institute government for the sole purpose of preserving and protecting those rights from the aggression of others. The government cannot dictate what is or is not a right. Its job is to protect individuals’ life, liberty, and property from others.

    In a free society (and that’s what we are all for, right?) you have the right act in any conceivable manner imaginable, so long as you do not infringe on the rights of any one else. You can’t take some one’s rights away just because you don’t agree with their conduct. I don’t agree or condone the homosexual lifestyle, but since it has nothing to do with me and does not harm me, I have no say on the matter of others engaging in such conduct.

    People have the right to associate and marriage is a form of association. It is a religious ceremony and the state ought not have anything to do with it. Marriage is defined to be whatever the individuals that are married define it to be. They can call it whatever they want.

    This analysis seems way too convoluted to me. And this issue is unnecessarily divisive and a huge distraction from the more important issues affecting this country, like, say,… international bankers robbing us and destroying the economy. Get the government out of this religious ceremony and problem solved.

    • Connor
      August 8, 2010 at 9:22 pm #

      Am I to understand from this statement that you believe that rights do not exist in the absence of government?

      No, you read that incorrectly. I am arguing that marriage itself is not a “right”, as it is a ceremony or status granted by others—the only “right” involved, which does inherently exist and predate government, is that of association. My article agrees with what you’ve written in your comment.

  18. Stephen
    August 8, 2010 at 9:51 pm #

    Okay, my mistake. Now if you’re saying that you do not have a right to compel someone to ordain a marriage, I agree in that sense. But I believe you do have a right to marry, no matter what, if the person or organization ordaining it is doing so voluntarily. The “grant” by others is simply an extension of free association. Is that your view?

  19. Lio Brown
    August 9, 2010 at 8:11 am #

    I’ve always wondered about this topic of gay marriage and I’ve been confused as wheather gay’s/lesbian’s have any rights to it…..but Connor put it well.

    Marriage was never a fundamental right in the first place, it is something we use to show our commitment to each other. It seems that the arguments about gay’s/lesbian’s is nothing more than a show to gain attention.

    Government’s job is to ensure our right’s are protected. And government is all ready doing that. Gay’s, lesbian’s, my wife and I, your wife and yourself, whoever have the right to associate with each other and that is where the fundamental right begins. At association. Nothing is being violated and so the people of California are fighting over nothing except braggin rights to a “fight” that does not matter. (At least that’s how I feel up to this point)

    My questions are: What are our fundamental rights and who determines what they are? How should this point of view affect LDS members caught up in this issue? Should the “fight” continue or are they fighting the wrong fight? Is this a moral issue or a fundamental rights issue (as far as being LDS is concerned)? And then where do you draw the line between being moral and your fundamental rights? Is there any relation between the two?

    Cheers Connor. I love it when you break things down for us laymans-term folk. It saves me the time and effort of pulling
    the hair out my head. Have a great day matey.

  20. Jimmy
    August 9, 2010 at 5:54 pm #

    Do any of you eat ham, shrimp or catfish by any chance?

  21. Clumpy
    August 10, 2010 at 12:13 am #

    I’m with @Jeffrey T on the marriage thing, if marriage is not a fundamental right, then no marriage is a fundamental right, including heterosexual marriage. The ONLY consistent position from this libertarian framework is to let Connor’s association be the right and then let contracts spring from that. Unfortunately hospitals and the like have proven that they are not necessarily duty-bound to honor private contracts, and stories of same-sex couples being denied visitation rights despite such a document are common. After proposing the abolition of government-sanctioned marriage, I won’t be further presumptuous enough to propose a solution to this.

    The implication that the Judge, as a homosexual, cannot be impartial is silly as well, as strange as saying that a “minority” judge could not take part in a decision on civil rights or similar legislation. Presumably as a human being Judge Walker would be unfairly predisposed toward human rights?

    @Jimmy Irrelevant. This is hardly an echo chamber, and even people who openly advocate the libertarian or “natural law” argument (though I believe it’s a silly idea – “divine” rights are useless without divine enforcement of these rights, and hence primarily an invention of people who like having a crutch to fall back on when things get ambiguous) are hardly silenced by portraying them only as religious nutballs.

    EDIT: And seriously, what’s up with people arguing this “in the absence of government” thought experiment, while simultaneously going for natural law in other debates? I certainly wouldn’t have the right to own property without government, thus I suppose governmental advocation of some property rights for some people would be appropriate?

  22. Jimmy
    August 10, 2010 at 6:31 pm #

    Irrelevant? Nobody has to associate with anyone who eats detestable things. Perhaps nobody has to recognize Ammonite/jewish or Moabite/jewish marriages either. Or perhaps any marriage on any basis, or do it arbitrarily, recognizing some and not others.

    Am I to take an employers statement of non-discrimination policies as a joke?

  23. rick@rickety
    August 14, 2010 at 8:42 am #

    No matter what a judge says I can still teach my children and grandchildren what is right and what is wrong. I can blog about it too, though Connor does a far better job than I.

    Argue all you want, I supported Proposition 8 and I still do.

  24. Nicolas Nierenberg
    August 17, 2010 at 10:43 am #

    The idea of marriage not being a fundamental right is interesting. But this issue already has been dealt with as it relates to inter-racial couples. When I was young there were laws banning inter-racial marriages at least in some states, and voters in those states were certainly largely in favor of those restrictions. It was ruled at that time that those laws violated the US constitution. I suppose by your logic that ruling was invalid, but I don’t think too many people would agree today.

    Of course the option exists for the government to get out of the marriage business, which I think would be a good decision. But this would need to happen on the federal as well as the state level. Many federal laws treat married couples differently. If the federal government recognized some type of global civil union status and eliminated the recognition of a marriage status then this issue would go away.

  25. Jackcv
    August 23, 2010 at 11:12 pm #

    Follow the Money

    The SSAD (Same Sex Attraction Disorder) population is a tiny minorty anywhere. Doesn’t it seem strange to anyone else that the teeny tip of the dog’s tail seems to be wagging the dog today? One after the other, huge corporations come out in support of SSAD marriages, SSAD rights, SSAD parades (

    The question is, “How does promoting homosexuality promote the self interest of the vastly rich and powerful?”

    Homosexual activity destabilizes the family, introduces and spreads exotic new diseases into the human genome, and encourages predatory behaviour against children. How does this further the interests of the very intelligent, farsighted rich and powerful “who stand erect behind the throne”?

  26. jimz
    May 13, 2012 at 7:24 am #

    “Homosexual activity ….introduces and spreads exotic new diseases into the human genome…”

    For that to happen REPRODUCTION has to occur! to my knowledge homosexual activity does not yet result in offspring! The only other thing that can do that is genetic engineering.

    Homosexuality destabilizes the family? predatory behavior against children? where do you get these ideas? family radio from herald camping?

  27. michael
    August 3, 2012 at 11:02 pm #

    In Loving v Virginia, the Supreme Court declared in its decision that marriage is a civil right.


  1. Give Iowa a try… « What they didn't teach in law school - August 30, 2010

    […] Proposition 8: The Allegedly Unconstitutional Constitutional Amendment ( […]

  2. “Don’t create a passive President”: Looking at “Signing Unconstitutional Laws” by William Baude (part 3, Conclusion) « What they didn't teach in law school - September 9, 2010

    […] Proposition 8: The Allegedly Unconstitutional Constitutional Amendment ( […]

Leave a Reply

Leave your opinion here. Please be nice. Your Email address will be kept private.