Another Unconstitutional Law Bites the Dust... or Begins to Die

How is it that California judges whose names start with V are SO reasonable? Judge Virginia joins Judge Vaughn in striking down another anti-gay discriminatory law that those in the political sphere (ahem, Obama) did not have the backbone to take on.

Read on.

Don't ask don't tell?

I don't think so -- not anymore. Seems the government will have to stop doing that. The judge said so.

Tracy

Court of Law Ain't No Court of Mere Opinion!

I'm having fun with this piece of news, as reported in the Christian Science Monitor. In fact, I am laughing out loud. The private citizens who supported Prop 8 are having a hard time demonstrating their legal standing to appeal Judge Vaughn Walker's August 2010 ruling that Prop 8 is unconstitutional. Walker said that to have standing that they must have a direct, personal injury that is "concrete and particularized" rather than say, merely imagined and theoretical. Further, Walker said, they would have to demonstrate that they would be harmed by the resumption of same-sex marriage in the state.

Walker wrote that the proponents of Prop 8 replied to his statements about standing by saying that they have an interest in defending Prop 8, but that they failed to articulate even one specific harm they may suffer! But in truth, how could they?

While many have made the ridiculous claim that somehow allowing same-sex couples to marry will do damage to the institution of marriage, it apparently does not do enough actual damage to anyone in that "institution" to warrant "a direct, personal injury."

Will any chance of a potential appeal die for lack of standing? Or, will someone or some group brave enough to endure public ridicule step forward to manufacture a case of how someone else's ability to marry actually hurts them?

Ah, it seems that the standards of rational argument are very low in the court of public opinion, where anyone can vote any way for any reason or no reason at all. In a court, you have to have actual evidence and persuasive arguments based on fact, not prejudice. No wonder the Prop 8 supporters did not want the Ninth Circuit court case televised -- then their arguments would be revealed for all to see as what they were -- mere personal moral judgments with no factual basis.