04 August 2010

CA Prop 8 Struck Down

So, the homosexual judge struck down the anti-homosexual "marriage" proposition 8 of CA. Clearly, this judgment was made on factual grounds (finding of fact) as shown in Ace of Spades (I just got a link to it from CMR) so it's harder to strike down on appeal (As I wrote before, I just hope they get the history right).

However, on page 133, there is a vestige of finding of law based on Planned Parenthood of
Southeastern Pa v Casey (505 US 833, 850, (1992)) and Lawrence (539 US at 582) (I believe Lawrence was the case about consensual gay sex).
California’s obligation is to treat its citizens equally, not to “mandate [its] own moral code.” Id (citing Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa v Casey, 505 US 833, 850, (1992)). “[M]oral disapproval, without any other asserted state interest,” has never been a rational basis for legislation. Lawrence, 539 US at 582 (O'Connor, J, concurring). Tradition alone cannot support legislation. See Williams, 399 US at 239; Romer, 517 US at 635; Lawrence, 539 US at 579. (emphasis added)
I could have predicted that this supposedly current reading of the U.S. Constitution, seemingly now the law of the land, would creep into this and all other "culture war" court cases, i.e., there are no morals except the judicial interpretation of the living document that is the U.S. Constitution. (BTW, this legal positivism comes with Kagan too.)

This comes from Casey. It's worth a full read.
Men and women of good conscience can disagree, and we suppose some always shall disagree, about the profound moral and spiritual implications of terminating a pregnancy, even in its earliest stage. Some of us as individuals find abortion offensive to our most basic principles of morality, but that cannot control our decision. Our obligation is to define the liberty of all, not to mandate our own moral code. [From the current case] The underlying constitutional issue is whether the State can resolve these philosophic questions in such a definitive way that a woman lacks all choice in the matter, except perhaps in those rare circumstances in which the pregnancy is itself a danger to her own life or health, or is the result of rape or incest.

It is conventional constitutional doctrine that where reasonable people disagree the government can adopt one position or the other. That theorem, however, assumes a state of affairs in which the choice does not intrude upon a protected liberty. Thus, while some people might disagree about whether or not the flag should be saluted, or disagree about the proposition that it may not be defiled, we have ruled that a State may not compel or enforce one view or the other.

Our law affords constitutional protection to personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, child rearing, and education. Our cases recognize "the right of the individual, married or single, to be free from unwarranted governmental intrusion into matters so fundamentally affecting a person as the decision whether to bear or beget a child." These matters, involving the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life. Beliefs about these matters could not define the attributes of personhood were they formed under compulsion of the State. (emphasis added)
This is what lead to legal assisted suicide in Oregon and to the continuation of abortion on demand. Until this interpretation of what's left of the U.S. Constitution is struck down utterly and without equivocation, there will be no stopping that which people are capable of imagining.

Really, how can the court know what the people in the voting booth were thinking when they voted? Who cares if people who brought Prop. 8 to the voting booth had a reason or not to do so: they only have one (1) vote a piece. The people of CA had their reasons to vote for it that only they know.

"...that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom—and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth."

The court has forgot. Sorry, dear Abe, may God have mercy on us.

(BTW, see Fr. Barron on the Casey decision near the end of the video below.)

No comments:

Post a Comment

Please comment in a civil manner, i.e., no foul language, name calling, threats, etc.