Super Lawyers
William C. Altreuter
visit superlawyers.com

Sunday, August 08, 2010

I'm pleased with the District Court's decision in Perry v. Schwarzenegger--most right-thinking people would be. I'm glad that Judge Walker's decision is fact intensive. Everybody knows it's going up, and the Reagan-appointed Walker has done the Ninth Circuit and the Supreme Court a solid service by laying the record out there for them. It is worth noting that Judge Walker's job was made easier by the failure of the proponents of Prop 8 to put in any meaningful proof, or even to make a coherent argument.

Here's the part I don't understand: how come the people who are now all howling about this result view this as the creation of a "new right"? This is not about creating rights-- the question before the court was whether Prop 8 violated the plaintiffs' due process and equal protection rights. This is not about whether the States have the right to define and regulate marriage; it is about whether the way that California went about defining and regulating marriage passes constitutional muster. No new right was created here-- all that happened was that a law that discriminated against a class of people without a rational basis was overturned. Maybe the problem is "rational"-- I'm not seeing a lot of rational discussion from the people who are unhappy about this, just hand-waiving about polygamy and bestiality. If the best you've got is a states rights argument then give it up-- you're about sixty years off the pace.

| Comments:
My favorite irrational arguement in this instance is Newt Gingrich (and I pause here to admire that this guy's name is"Newt", a very nearly brainless lizard), who has stated, "Marriage should be between one man and one woman". Lovely when we consider that he's been married to three women.
 
I'd always assumed it was short for Newton.
 

Post a Comment



Links to this post:

Create a Link



<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?