Tuesday, February 7, 2012

Prop 8

There is nothing that I can see in Proposition Eight, California's act that prohibits marriage between same-sex couples, as violating the principles of the Constitution.

Perversity is not a crime. Being viewed as perverse isn't actionable as a crime. One of the fundamentals of civilization is, that to be a crime, there must be harm. And not just a civil harm, but a criminal harm.

I read Rousseau as a college student. Having the freedom to choose what to do with yourself is a natural freedom. Whether you choose to paint yourself pink and yellow and prance about your bedroom is as natural a right as it is to pray to God. What right have I to tell you not to paint yourself pink and yellow and prance about your bedroom? The freedom to express yourself is a Constitutional right. The freedom to act in a manner that offends, is a Constitutional right. The license to marry is a contractual obligation that is recognized by the state. The state defines the conditions under which such a license is issued. Just as I must be able to pass a vision test, and a driving skills test, the state has under its jurisdiction the authority to issue rules to which one must abide, in order to gain the license of that state, to enter into a state of matrimony.

States don't have the authority to limit our freedom of speech, our freedom to express ourselves, or our freedom to choose much of our own lives. It does have the authority to tell each of us whether or not we can drive a car, build a dam, or shoot our neighbors. It does have the authority to tell us whether or not our children must attend school. It has authority over our lives that we may object to.

And all of this authority comes from the same place; the laws a state passes and then enacts.

Again, the Ninth Circuit attempts to wander from the tested waters of jurisprudence.

Good luck in the majors.


T. D. said...

"It has authority over our lives that we may object to."

Authority arbitrarily exercised undermines legitimate authority.

Marriage is not a constitutional right. When higher courts limit the right of the people to say who is or is not married based on who they are married to (same sex, opposite sex already married to another person, father, child, plant or animal), then, of course, why should the people be able to say who can or cannot drive a motor vehicle?

MAX Redline said...

Marriage is not a "right", nor is there a "right" to education enshrined in the Constitution. Why?

Well, as our founders recognized, it's not the role of government.

The people are expected to do for themselves. Local government's purpose is to do what people cannot do for themselves. State government's purpose is to do what local government cannot. And federal government's purpose is to do what state government cannot.

The federal government has no authority, for example, to create a federal Department of Education. In point of fact, this Department can point to not one positive outcome, despite years of intrusion and billions in tax dollars. The growth of home-schooling and of charter schools, arguably the most positive developments to have occurred in the past thirty years in American education, have come about despite the federal Department, not because of it.

Likewise, government has no compelling role in the institution of marriage.

Ten Mile Island said...


Repudiation occurs. It occurs every day. I see it every day. I pull over to talk on my cellphone. I've had a phone in my car since the 1970's. And now, due to the care and compash of the Oregon Legislature, I must pull over to use my car phone now.

Repudiation occurs. You and I see folks driving and talking on their cellphones every day. It's against the law. Compliance with the law is the duty of every citizen. My son was kinda wowed when he found out that over 40-thousand new rules and regulations went into effect on January 1st.

We have no clue what the rules and regs are when it comes to our behaviour. And there is no rational basis to expect us to know what is in those 40-thousand new rules and regs.

Undermines legitimate authority? Our collective goverments, authorities and commissions have left the reservation. It's every man for himself. We are living in an administrative and judicial wilderness.


I've found generally, that in most instances, governments have no compelling role. But don't get me started on captured rents.

ZZMike said...

T. D.: "Marriage is not a constitutional right."

It has nothing to do with the Constitution, not the Constitution with it. People have been getting married for over 10,000 years.

Courts are not trying to "limit the right of the people"; the people - a small group of vocal upstarts who insist on having their own way over the objections of everyone else - who have been trying to ell us that 10,000 years of recorded human history are irrelevant.

Max: "Likewise, government has no compelling role in the institution of marriage."

A minor role, perhaps, similar to their involvement in the law of contracts. A marriage - in the eyes of the state - is like a contract, in that it binds two people to certain economic agreements.

TMI: "Our collective goverments, authorities and commissions have left the reservation. It's every man for himself."

Is there a difference between that and anarchy?

Ten Mile Island said...