High Court’s Defiance of Marriage Act

By Richard Nelson

j

June 26, 2013

Please follow and like us:

The U.S. Supreme Court declined to uphold the meaning of marriage and undermined the democratic process when it struck down the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). Perhaps we should call it their Defiance of Marriage Act (DMA). The Court also declined to hear a defense to California’s Proposition 8 which defined marriage as the union of one man and one woman. They said proponents of the law lacked standing even while California officials refused to defend the duly enacted law.  This could be dubbed their MIA or Missing In Action ruling.

Just so we are clear, it was OK for federal judge Vaughn Walker who was in a homosexual relationship at the time, to strike down a law that seven million California voter’s enacted. Governor Jerry Brown and his attorney general then refused to defend the law. Now we are told that regular citizens don’t have standing before the court to keep the law intact.

Ohhhkay…

Walker should have recused himself since there was a conflict of interest. Brown and company had a duty to uphold the law, even though they disagreed with it. And every California citizen has a vested interest in keeping natural marriage intact.

So here’s what I would have said if I was on the court: “Marriage between one man and one woman is a pre-political institution that a healthy society cannot live without. Recognition of the core man/woman requirement of marriage is integral to what marriage is. Two people of the same sex may have a deep friendship or even a passionate, long-term affair, but they do not necessarily have a marriage—regardless of what state they reside in or contrary to the questionable opinion of any person donning  a black robe.”

0 Comments

Submit a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Related Post

Director, Commonwealth Policy Center