Con Law 101
The Dog Trainer links to “Judge” Richard Kramer’s tentative ruling declaring traditional marriage unconstitutional. I don’t really care about that, since a ruling on a matter of law by one judge at the superior court level sets exactly as much precedent and receives exactly as much deference on appeal as this particular ruling deserves, i.e., none. However, I would like to call your attention “Judge” Kramer’s cute little biology lesson which appears in footnote 3. Or maybe it’s a cute little semantics lesson, I’m not sure. Whatever it is, here’s a transcript of the original draft.
To be
sillyprecise, same-sex couples can cause procreation. A female capable of producing children can be“married“to a female and become pregnant through various methodsunrelated to her same-sex union, thenmake the father go away by telling him she miscarried andproduce and raise the child in her same-sex union, and top it all off by asking some credulous judge like me to believe her sex partner played a significant role in producing the child. Similarly, a same-sex male couple canhave one of its members get pregnant just like those other guys did in Rabbit Test or Junior,cause asame-sexfemalehaving nothing to do with the same-sex male coupleto become pregnant, directly orthrough a wholly owned subsidiaryotherwise,kill the motherand later adopt and raise the child.
Looking on the bright side, at least “Judge” Kramer didn’t study con law with Ann Coulter.
UPDATE: Via Kevin Murphy, Eugene Volokh has some choice quotes from women’s libbers in the 1970s mocking Phyllis Schafly’s crazy notion that the Equal Rights Amendment might one day be construed to include gay marriage. Oops.
March 14th, 2005 at 6:20 pm
“and top it all off by asking some credulous judge like me to believe her sex partner played a significant role in producing the child.”
We could implant the egg from one into the other. Science!
March 14th, 2005 at 8:08 pm
SF Judge Seeks Re-Election
The LA Times and their East Coast namesake both have stories on San Francisco Judge Richard Kramer’s ruling that the California constitution requires the state to certify same-sex marriages. As xrlq points out, the only thing that Judge Kramer proved…
March 15th, 2005 at 10:59 am
Marriage and Procreation Debate Continues
In light of yesterday’s ruling that the State of California cannot deny all Californians equal marriage rights, the debate over the purposes of marriage rages again. Let me be clear: marriage is not about procreation. Blogger XRLQ criticizes fellow Re…
March 15th, 2005 at 2:58 pm
Boi: Regardless of whether it gets reversed at the appelate or Supreme Court level, this decision is going to backfire on gay marriage supporters in a BIG way.
When the DOMA Amendment was being debated in the Senate last year, even its opponents claimed to oppose gay marriage, saying instead that they would prefer to have the issue decided by the states. But California’s constitution prohibits gay marriage (courtesy of Prop 22). I hate to repeat myself, but the court is declaring the constitution of the State of California to be unconstitutional.
Not only is that a flagrant abuse of power by the judiciary, it removes the fig leaf that DOMA’s opponents relied on to oppose the anti-gay marriage Amendment without supporting gay marriage. I guarantee you that before the November 06 elections, DOMA will be back on the table, and enough red-state Democrats and moderate Republicans will be forced to either switch their vote that the Amendment will pas the Senate.
March 15th, 2005 at 3:04 pm
Sean: Prop 22 was not a constitutional amendment. Of course, if this silly ruling sticks, a constitutional version will soon end up on the ballot, and almost certainly pass by roughly the same margin Prop 22 did. Then the judicial activists will have only two options left: ditch the silly court challenges, or allege a violation under the federal constitution, which federal courts can then reverse.
March 15th, 2005 at 3:24 pm
Sorry about passing on the bad information (according to http://www.beliefnet.com/family/datingmarriage/prop22_text.html) Prop 22 amended the Family Code, not the constitution. As this undermines my entire point, I do feel pretty foolish. I just wish I could remember which commentator passed on the bad info to me.
March 15th, 2005 at 3:38 pm
No apology needed. Actually, I’m kind of glad you posted that comment. I recently commented to BFT that a constitutional amendment version of Prop 22 could pass just as easily as the ballot initiative did, adding that half the people who voted on Prop 22 probably thought they were voting on a constitutional amendment anyway. Next time I make that argument, I have an Exhibit A to link to.
March 15th, 2005 at 3:57 pm
Sean – the belief that Proposition 22 was an initiative constitutional amendment is a fairly common one. My experience is that the vast majority of people *don’t know the difference* between an initiative constitutional amendment and an initiative statute and that, while they could understand the difference if they bothered to think about it, they don’t care enough to do so.
March 16th, 2005 at 6:31 pm
The difference between a statutory initiative and constitutional amendment is virtually nil in the state of California. It’s about 300,000 signatures on a petition. You know what that 300,000 signatures buys you? Insulation from the courts…that’s it. In a sane world that isn’t too valuable. At least that used to be the case. I’ve thought that if Prop. 22 does get overturned it’s effectively the end of the statutory initiative. Everything, at least if the proponents were at least 5 watts strong would be a constitutional amendment.
April 2nd, 2005 at 2:05 pm
SF to Register Bloggers
Before the FEC regulation takes effect, San Francisco wants to register bloggers in its borders. The Interocitor reports the details….