Tuesday, April 07, 2009

Coming soon to a state near you--CLARIFIED

Same-Sex Marriage.

As reported on UPI.com, "Vermont legalized same-sex marriage Tuesday when both houses of the state legislature voted to override the governor's veto.

The first state in the United States to adopt civil unions, Vermont is now the first to legalize marriage for homosexual couples by legislative action, The Burlington Free Press reported."

It's that last sentence there that makes this action by the state's legislature such a huge, huge deal.

3 other state courts have said that bans on homosexual marriage are unconstitutional. I had serious doubts that such a ruling would withstand further judicial scrutiny. (Indeed, there was never likely to be any further judicial scrutiny)

Now those rulings won't have to be placed under further scrutiny to expand the realm of influence. It's Roe v Wade, part II: the expansion of the liberal movement through judicial overreach.

Roe, as you may recall from my earliest writings on this blog, was--in my humble opinion--an atrocious decision. 1970's science became entrenched as "the law" for all time; the state constitution of Texas was left as stating that "life begins at conception"--but then that state-recognized life had no rights to state-provided protection.

But more than ALL of that--and many, many other reasons--my biggest beef with Roe was the use of the 14th amendment as a jackhammer to pass a law from one state to another through the courts.

All it takes is for the law in one state--pardon me, a "right" granted in one state that is not granted in the next--to be claimed as "fundamental".

And honestly, what is more "rooted in the traditions and conscience of our people" than the union of two people into one familial unit?

Such will be the argument anyway, probably popping up in a court somewhere in this great country of mine right about. . .now.

And it will go to the Supreme Court before too long.

So I ask you: what are the chances that Justice Kennedy will side with the Roberts block in keeping one state's law from becoming the law of the land?

TO CLARIFY: The reason the Vermont Legislature's action yesterday was so important is because now the same-sex marriage movement has it's one shining example of a legislative body granting this right to a jurisdiction. It is hard--indeed, unprecedented--for a court to say that a certain right is "fundamental" when that right hasn't been protected by a single state-wide legislature.

As for marriage being a fundamental right? That determination already exists, under Turner v Safley in 1987 (and that's a good thing, by the way).


Post a Comment

<< Home