The California majority said prohibition of same-sex marriage constitutes unconstitutional discrimination. Shocking that no one had noticed before. All this time, the assumption that men and women had been created for each other, not least in order to procreate -- and no one raised a finger. Not the old guys in the Bible. Not Plato. Not Aquinas. Not even Norman Mailer! Up pops the California, Supreme Court -- I mean, its four-judge majority -- to explain what forevermore had been said and thought and believed and practiced. Gosh -- aren't judges something?
Well, they are. Which is why Californians are being asked in November to amend their constitution and so prohibit as a legal matter marriages between Californians of the same sex. California's highest court is causing Californians a lot of unnecessary bother and expense, while stirring up intramural ill will and setting an unwholesome example of judicial arrogance and intellectual disconnectedness.
Sad. Not prejudicial, ipso facto (in legalspeak) to the reality of marriage -- which, as I say, is beyond reach -- but sad. That's because the California Supreme Court's imprimatur will convince various folks that A is B and up is down. Some of these folks, newly convinced or reinforced in what they believed already, will then operate on those assumptions, with possibly tragic consequences.
Why don't judges get it? Legislators write law. Judges interpret what others have written. Anyway, national election coming up. The California Supreme Court, without knowing it, just put on a heck of a fundraiser for John McCain.
15 Excerpts That Show How Radical, Weird And Out of Touch College Campuses Have Become | John Hawkins