Yeah, I know, just what you all have been waiting for, another diary on the Prop 8 trial. It's not as though there isn't plenty of fodder for all sorts of worthwhile analysis and sadly, it's not as though there isn't plenty of fodder for all sorts of foolishness as well.
The plaintiffs' lead attorneys did a crackerjack job of pressing our case with the mainstream media over the weekend, amply diaried here yesterday. Naturally the same old tired, bigotted talking points arise in various places; Ross Douthat managed to lead folks down the primrose path in the NY Times this morning by discussing ideals of Ozzie and Harriet Land, which whether or not they have a basis in reality, are not required for the solemnization of a heterosexual marriage (so why should they be required for a gay one?).
There's the usual foaming at the mouth by religious extremists. And then there are the folks who think that it would be just ducky to do away with civil marriage entirely, now that gays and lesbians are on the verge of gaining full entry there. As if that's gonna happen. I recommend indiemcemopants' two weekend diaries on the subject, if you want to look them up. Now a Republican Congressman has decided to weigh in on the issue with the predictable results. Keep reading if you dare.
I don't know too much about Lamar Smith, other than that he's a Republican who represents a district in Texas. What is it about those Texas R's?
Smith and his staff have drafted a House Resolution, with the hope of getting the entire House of Representatives on board. Basically, the judge should be slammed because...well...he did what federal judges are supposed to do.
Do you wanna go there, Mr. Smith?
I was going to copy and paste each clause, but it seems that isn't so easy to do with Scribd files. So just to summarize, Smith begins his diatribe by citing all of the states that have imposed bans on marriage equality, either by legislation or by popular vote.
Just because it gets voted in, that doesn't make it Constitutional; otherwise we wouldn't have the expression "Unconstititional" in our vocabulary.
He notes that three of the five states that currently have marriage equality got there through court actions.
And this is a problem...why? Seems like there are some judges who are willing to do their jobs.
He claims that the aforementioned judges are "rewriting the Constitution."
Really? Where is there any reference to marriage in the Constitution?
And of course trots out the usual line about "judicial activism."
In other words, I didn't like the outcome of the trial.
Then some details.
Walker's ruling overturned a state referendum. Seven million Californians voted for Prop 8, including many African-Americans.
I see he's been talking to dear Maggie G. Seven million Californians can't be wrong, but 6.5 million Californians can? Oh and now we bring up the race card on government time? Classy.
Walker's ruling "redefined" "traditional" marriage.
No. It didn't. It merely clarified who may participate in the instutition of marriage. And which "tradition" is being overturned? And why does it matter what's traditional? Slaveholding once was traditional in the US and in many other nations as well. Where is it legal these days?
Walker "failed to conduct himself in an impartial manner."
Examples please.
Walker "attempted to illegally broadcast the trial."
A pilot program for broadcasting judicial procedings already exists; he merely wanted to make use of it. He got smacked down, probably wrongfully.
Walker, instead of trying the case as a matter of law, as other courts have done, insisted in trying the case based upon matters of fact.
Stupid facts! They just get in the way. How dare Walker inject facts into the case???
And so it goes. There's more if you want to read; I've linked the proposed resolution above. Smith wants Walker to be punished, and the decision to be appealed. The former won't happen; the latter either will or will not, but not because of a House Resolution.
Apparently, Smith isn't big on separation of powers and all that other legal gobbledygook that the folks who actually care about civil rights are so into these days.
The only consolation in this sordid business? Smith's a Republican. His resolution isn't going to see a vote by the full House. That's one place where the majority DOES rule. The majority are Democrats. Elections do have consequences, and for that I'm glad.