Monday, August 13, 2012

Rational basis for marriage

A gay lawyer announces:
In Hawaii, gay couples may enter civil unions with all the state-based rights and legal protections of marriage, but without the official designation of being “married.”  Same-sex couples sued to have the status of marriage, urging that they had a fundamental right to marry under the Due Process Clause and that the state could not discriminate against them under the Equal Protection Clause.  Last week, a federal district court in Hawaii denied their claims.  In a lengthy opinion in Jackson v. Abercrombie, Judge Alan C. Kay rejected the lawsuit on the grounds that he had no choice to do otherwise under binding Supreme Court precedent and that, even if he did, the plaintiffs’ claims failed on the merits.  The judge argued that the Ninth Circuit’s decision striking down Prop 8 in Perry v. Brown was distinguishable because, as Judge Reinhardt ruled, the Perry case involved only the narrow circumstances where a state has granted marriage to same-sex couples and then taken it away.  Hawaii, on the other hand, is a state where couples never had the right to marry.
Same-sex marriage is somewhat off-topic for this blog, but I do track political activists manipulating the courts to undermine relations between parents and kids.

Marriage law is normally written by the state legislature, and the federal courts are only intervening because of the argument that our marriage law has no rational basis, and hence unconstitutional. The Hawaii federal judge ruled:
Specifically, the legislature could rationally conclude that defining marriage as a union between a man and woman provides an inducement for opposite-sex couples to marry, thereby decreasing the percentage of children accidently [sic] conceived outside of a stable, long-term relationship. ...

The legislature could also rationally conclude that other things being equal, it is best for children to be raised by a parent of each sex. Under rational basis review, as long as the rationale for a classification is at least debatable, the classification is constitutional. Both sides presented evidence on this issue and both sides pointed out flaws in their opponents’ evidence. Thus, the Court concludes this rationale is at least debatable and therefore sufficient. ...

Finally, the state could rationally conclude that it is addressing a divisive social issue with caution. ...
For similar arguments for the rationality of marriage law, see the Connecticut dissent and the 2009 Obama DoJ position. (Obama has now disavowed his previous views.)

In order for the gay lobby to get what they want, they must either convince the legislature in states lime New York, or convince the voting public in states like California, or convince the courts that marriage law is irrational. The US Supreme Court is likely to soon be soon hearing a marriage case, and the gay lobby will have to argue that it is irrational for state policies to encourage kids to be raised by their moms and dads.

That is where I differ from the gay lobby. They are out to kill parental rights, and any other rights that stand in the way of their political objectives. They are allied with other leftist anti-Christian groups that seek to destroy American culture. They oppose Chick-fil-A and Boy Scouts having First Amendment rights. They require California schools to teach homosexuality.

They push for laws to let a judge declare that a child has several moms, and for ordering intact families to be busted up. These laws are direct attacks on the family, on Christianity, and on American culture.

There are 3 feminists on the US Supreme Court. Pres. Obama appointed 2 of them. They are likely to say that marriage is irrational.

It is entirely rational for states to have laws encouraging kids to be raised by their moms and dads. Every civilization has had such laws. We should have stronger laws requiring kids to be raised by their moms and dads. Our society may crumble if we do not.

If trends continue, dads will have no rights to their kids. It will all be subject to the discretion of a family court judge, and his opinion of the BIOTCh (defined by ABA). Thank the feminists, leftists, gays, and their allies.


Andrew said...

In fact the UK already is implementing joint custody into law as you've blogged about before.

And what does the gay rights lobby have to do with fathers losing their parental rights? Are they breaking into homes and seizing children or something? And what about the gay and lesbian couples across the nation who already raise kids or want to?

If anything, people all over the political spectrum can agree that parents, married or divorced, have the right to raise their children until convicted in an open court of law by a jury of child abuse or any other circumstance of being unfit to raise a child. For instance you wrote about your own custody case in May 2011: "If I were truly a bad parent, the court could just declare me unfit or give my ex-wife permanent custody...[but] [i]t just keeps issuing temporary orders, and it may continue doing that until my kids are age 18." If anything I notice that most of the times when fathers lose their custody rights is because of crooked family court judges deferring to crazy exes rather than the law. So what's the solution to that? Banning divorce, as a failed California ballot initiative once proposed?

Andrew said...

Another thing, why do you keep defending Mirkarimi's actions, even though he pled guilty to the crime anyway? Even if the victim doesn't complain, the domestic violence is still inherently illegal, so should the law be relaxed or what? Just because the victim doesn't complain doesn't make a crime non-prosecutable. That is why California kept pursuing Roman Polanski for the past 3 decades even though his rape victim (age 13 at the time) later personally decided against having Polanski extradited to the US. And I've read stories in the news about people getting prosecuted for robbing dead people's homes (like this case where the robbers got 8 years each for robbing the home whose residents all died in a car crash) or more recently an arrest for robbing Steve Jobs's house.

George said...

No, I do not favor banning divorce. The proposal was a silly attempt to be ironic. It was really just another attempt to destroy marriage.

Your second comment is not showing. Maybe a Google bug. I hope it will reappear or that you repost it.

Roman Polanski was pursued for statutory rape. That means that it was a crime regardless of the 13yo girl's opinion of the matter. We do not expect 13yo girls to make adult decisions. Murkarimi's wife is an adult, and she is certainly capable of consenting to her arm being gripped.

Yes, it is a crime to steal from Steve Jobs' house because his property is owned by his estate, and hence his heirs. If they were to announce that they do not object to thieves stealing from the house, then such thieves would not be prosecuted.