Kevin And Don Respond To Being Self Loathing

Looking back at their journey from the Stonewall Democratic Club to Log Cabin Republicans, they claim it was one that was actually started by the democrats. After being told that marriage as not a priority on the agenda in 1995, they became disillusioned with the DEMS. For a decade they felt like they did not belong until they met the republicans of the Log Cabin Republican Club and discovered they too shared a dream of marriage equality. This blog is now a digital time capsule of their time as Republicans and moderated by a friend and supporter.

Tuesday, September 06, 2011

Bias and Bigoted Are Exposed In The Judiciary

As a gay man who believes he understands the law, I was assaulted by the intellectual biased bigotry from some of California's top jurists. This is some of what I heard. The bias is subtextual and subliminal but it is there. It is the blatant attempt to marginalize gay and lesbian marriages. Justice Ming Chin said, "When you have one side not represented, it seems to me that the right to enact an initiative is illusory." Charles Cooper, a lawyer for the sponsors, quoted a 1978 decision in which the state high court said, "It is our solemn duty to jealously guard the initiative process." Cooper argued, "The proponents have a right to propose a valid constitutional amendment. They therefore have the right to defend its validity." Theodore Olson, a lawyer for the couples, contended that while the state Constitution gives citizens the right to propose and approve initiatives, it gives only the governor and attorney general the authority to decide whether to defend them. "There is nothing in the California Constitution or statutes that gives private citizens the right to take over the attorney general's responsibilities," he argued. But Justice Joyce Kennard said, "It appears to me that to agree with you would be to nullify the great power of the initiative that the people have reserved to themselves." Justice Goodwin Liu, the court's newest member, said the Proposition 8 sponsors "have put in a substantial amount more time and effort on the initiative and they controlled the ballot arguments on it." "Just commonsensically, isn't it the case that they are the one who are most clearly invested in the success of the initiative?" Liu asked. Yes the do Justice Lie because the appeal has been bought and paid for. It sickens me. It is sad that, no tragic, that it does not sicken you. I grew up as a lawyer knowing basic principals of standing and venue. Some of the Justices must remember almost 30 years ago when the Supreme Court ruled that a person who had been subjected to a chokehold by Los Angeles police officers lacked standing to challenge the constitutionality of that procedure because he could not show that he personally would be likely to be choked again. This man was attached physically and he could not challenge a procedure because he could not show that he would be harmed again. The Supremes were so tough they found that being harmed only once was not sufficient. I still do not understand the harm of marriage. Further, most of you jurists out there must remember that the Supreme Court held that no one had standing to challenge the George W. Bush administration's grant of funds to religious institutions to provide social services. The court stressed that no one was directly injured, even though there was a claim that this was an impermissible establishment of religion in violation of the 1st Amendment.