Here's the article I am referencing. "Gay Marriage, Democracy, and the Courts" by Robert George in the Wall Street Journal Opinion section Monday Aug 3, 2009.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204619004574322084279548434.html

The argument in this article is logically inconsistent and ethically flawed. For example it tries to make a case that gay marriage is NOT a civil rights issue. *That* is ludicrous! First let’s make sure everyone reading this has a brief history lesson on how prejudice becomes law here in CA.

Chief Justice Ronald George, who wrote the majority opinion in last year’s decision that granted marriage rights to same-sex couples in California says the following, “Our government is based on the principle not just of majority rule, but equally so on the limit that majorities must always respect minority rights,” he said. “That balance between majority rule and minority rights is recognized as the genius, as the defining hallmark of our democratic system.”

The lawyer defending Prop 8 in court was Kenneth Starr – remember him??? “Starr argues that Prop 8 should remain part of the constitution because the democratic system provides for popular sovereignty, even if the decision of the people is unwise!” When George asked whether an amendment taking away domestic partnership rights or the right to free speech would be valid by this reasoning, Starr said such an amendment would be permissible “as long as it is in fact clear to the people what they’re voting on.” (Excerpts from ‘Justices grill attorneys on Prop 8’, By Chris Johnson, Washington Blade | Mar 5 2009, 6:03 PM)

Eloquence does not equate to sound logic! The principle Justice George uses in the case of marriage equality *IS* the SAME principle used by the US Supreme Court in Loving vs. Virgina! The article’s author suggests that Loving, a federal case that undid bigoted state laws against interracial marriage is somehow different from the ruling in place prior to Ca Prop 8. He says, "Everyone agreed that interracial marriages were marriages. Racists just wanted to ban them as part of the evil regime of white supremacy that the equal protection clause was designed to destroy." I guarantee more than Clan members were "unsettled" by Loving back in 1967! Yet Loving now is widely supported even it wasn’t back in the day. The rule of law can lead the people towards equality if applied in an equitable manner. If not, it acts to institutionalize prejudice!

1st "everyone" did not agree at the time of Loving and racism sadly still exists in many places today in 2009 despite the courts acting to protect civil rights for over 40 years! In 1958 the Virgina Circuit Court grand jury said the following, “Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix." If it wasn’t for the “principle” of balancing majority rule with minority rights interracial marriages and segregation might still be upheld in some states. That is NOT okay nor is it consistent with the thread of the Constitution as we see it today. The constitution is after all an evolving document as intended by its authors who put in place the seperate branches of power!

2nd George makes that claim that what distinguished marriage historically is the ability to produce offspring but then goes on to point out that non consummation is the grounds for annulment not infertility. *If* marriage is about baby making then infertility *should* be the leading reason for annulment! George says, “But as a comprehensive sharing of life—an emotional and biological union—marriage has value in itself and not merely as a means to procreation.” Believe me gay folk know a lot about “biological unions!” And that is really the problem isn’t it, people being uncomfortable with the idea of sodomy. If you aren’t into it- don’t do it! But let’s not make stupid laws and waste ALL this money over what other people do or don’t do in their private lives!

Since the disappointing Supreme Court decision on May 26, 2009, momentum has been building towards placing marriage equality on the ballot in 2010. At this point, it looks like it is going to happen.

So the question is, what are we going to do about it? November 2010 is a long way away. But Team Courage Orange County is not going to wait for the signatures to be collected, for the proposition to be made official, and for the campaigns to kick off. We are building our organization NOW. We're establishing leadership positions and planning our structure. We have started recruiting volunteers. We've begun canvassing. We have more canvasses scheduled soon.

We've begun going door-to-door, talking to people in Orange County. We're telling our stories in hopes of changing the hearts and minds of our neighbors, family, and friends. We have started the conversation.

If we are going to win, we can't wait for campaign season to roll around. We need to begin this conversation NOW. The road to 2010 starts here, and we are not going to wait.

Will you join us?

My blog post from www.libertyhill.typepad.com on May 11, 2009

Like many of you, I go to several fundraisers per month.  I receive dozens of direct mail pieces.  All have a common message in the last six months. "Times are difficult but we'd appreciate it if you can find a tiny morsel more for our important cause."  Ok, so maybe not that timid, but you get the point.  Everyone feels obligated to somehow acknowledge the economic situation before asking for money for critically important work.

I'm a progressive working for economic and racial justice.  I'm a gay man fighting for marriage equality. The need for social change after 8 years of the Bush Administration has never been more dire. And the political opportunity with progressives in power from City Hall to Sacramento to the White House has never been greater. 

This is not the time for us to cut back our giving out of fear of what may happen or because our investments are down.  If we are employed or still have accumulated assets (admittedly somewhat less of them), this is the time to give and give more generously than ever. 

 If not now, when? 

As Angelenos who count immigrants both documented and undocumented amongst our friends and neighbors and The White House is calling for true immigration reform, if not now, when?

When more people than ever need access to affordable housing due to high unemployment, if not now, when?

When the basic civil right of marriage for gay and lesbian Californians can be won, if not now, when?

I will not give less in these hard times and I will ask you to join me in stretching further than ever.  The time is now.  Not two years from now when our investments bounce back.  Not six months from now when our property values rebound a little. 

"Change will NOT come if we wait for SOME OTHER PERSON OR SOME OTHER TIME" --Barack Obama

Not some other person or some other time.  It's you.  It's me.  Today is our day.  We need to dig deep and give our time and our money.  We will never see a bigger return on our investments in social change than investing big. Today.

Let's step away from the abstract, all the rhetoric and semantics, smokescreens and conflict. Let's get down to the human face. Here is your human face;

I am gay. I think I was born gay. Is being gay sometimes a choice? Maybe it is for some folks, but not for me. I didn't choose to be left-handed or green-eyed either, but I am.

I am your neighbor. I am the stranger who held the door for you yesterday, the smiling friendly person who chatted with you in the checkout line last week, the one who let you pick greens from my yard for your tortoise. I am the one who gave you a jumpstart in the parking lot that day, the one who picked you up on the side of the road and drove you to fill that gas can and returned you to your car. I buy Girl Scout cookies and chocolate bars and wrapping paper, pledge to T-Ball hit-a-thons and fundraiser walks. I donate clothes to Goodwill, food to Plowshares, money to the Southern Poverty Law Center. I am courteous to you because it's the right thing to do. I give back to my community because it's the right thing to do.   Read More »

Lets be honest, the Supreme Court is demographically opposed the the overturning of Prop 8. With 6 Justices appointed by Republican Governors and only one by a Democrat, the conservative viewpoint is politically/likely going to be upheld.

I am obviously not an attorney. I never spent a day in law school. I have no respected role in law. What I do know is logic:
- The courts today wasn't fought over the humanity of encroaching on civil rights it, as in all Supreme Court cases, was fought over precedence of other decisions. If the courts vote in favor of Prop 8, they will be voting in favor of this idea, "The public's vote has precedence over all else."

In the short term this is scary, it is scary because we lost the Prop 8 fight and gay marriage in CA will be lost...for now.

The long term is this:   Read More »