Are we finally starting to see some semblance of reason and rationality in a debate over the government’s obligation to protect the fundamental rights of ALL of its citizens? Has the apocalypse started? Have we finally started to move away from a discussion of “this is what I think…well, THIS is what I think,” and towards a conversation grounded in constitutional precedent and fact?
Part of me still refuses to believe it. The realistic part that is. The part that’s watched pundits, politicos, religiosos, and others with practically no legal training whatsoever blabber on about legal precedent, judicial activism, the “right” to vote on other peoples’ rights, etc., with little to no reason in any of it. That part of me is thinking that this is all part of a dream that we’re destined to wake up from…in fact, we’ve already seen a little bit of this in the “response” to the Prop 8 decision that so-called “social conservatives” have made.
“Oh, this is just another example of a gay liberal San Fransisco judge engaging in judicial activism.”
Wrong. Well, he’s gay by all accounts. But liberal and an advocate for so-called judicial activism? Hardly. He was originally nominated by Ronald Reagan, and House Democrats opposed his nomination. He was later re-nominated by George H.W. Bush, and had drawn the ire of both gay and feminist advocacy groups.
“This is the Hollywood Democrat agenda being imposed on the will of the people.”
Wrong. The lead counsel for the plaintiffs, Ted Olson, is about as non-Hollywood Democrat as they come. The best support I can give for this? Remember that Bush v. Gore case that the Hollywood Democratic elite hated? Yeah, he’s the attorney that won it for Bush’s team. There are plenty of other examples along this line.
But here’s an idea. Lets take this decision out of the political sphere for a second. Yes, I just said it. Take the politics OUT for a second and what do you have? A legal question. A legal question with what I feel is a fairly clear legal answer. And anyone, regardless of whether they identify as conservative or liberal, with an elementary understanding of law and how it is applied, can get behind this decision. Surprisingly, it sounds like people are starting to get that, but I won’t hold my breath. As I’ve been saying for years, I won’t believe it until I see it.