Gay marriage, Judge Kramer, and the California Constitution

Skippy is not a bad person at all (after all, he linked to my blog today, thanks very much), but unfortunately I strongly disagree with his recent post about Judge Richard Kramer, the California Superior Court Judge who concluded in March 2005 that “no rational purpose exists for limiting marriage in [the State of California] to opposite-sex partners.”

a judge is being followed 24/7 by bodyguards to protect him against death threats

Well actually, it’s completely wrong to threaten anyone with death, especially a judge, because that weakens our democratic system of government. If people call themselves Christians yet threaten judges with death, then they don’t seem to be consistently adhering to their own religious doctrines.

But the real point of Skippy’s post is that he wants us to send a letter to support the judge’s decision.

Sorry Skippy, can’t do that. Kramer’s decision is a perfect example of how an activist liberal judge has ignored his legal duties in order to achieve a decision that supports a liberal policy objective.

I previously wrote about gay marriage, and I think I quite rationally explained why it’s appropriate for traditional marriage to be endorsed by the state, but not same-sex marriage.

So we see that there is indeed a very rational (and non-religion based) argument for not allowing same-sex marriage. You may not agree with it, but it’s a rational argument. A judge can’t simply use the “rational purpose” theory to declare any law he doesn’t like to be unconstitutional!

The decision was also tied into the Equal Protection Clause of the California Constitution found at Article I Section 7(a) which reads in part:

A person may not be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law or denied equal protection of the laws;

This says nothing about gay marriage being required by the California Constitution. It’s a provision designed to ensure that the state doesn’t arbitrarily apply the same laws differently to different people. But the marriage laws of California apply equally to both homosexuals and heterosexuals; both are free to marry a willing partner of the opposite sex!

When the California Constitution was written in 1879 (it was originally written in 1849, but redrafted in 1879 and that’s when the Equal Protection Clause was added), does anyone seriously entertain the notion that the drafters intended to declare that men could marry other men? Get real! If they wanted to say something as radical as that, they would have said it a lot more plainly.

Judge Kramer wants to change the intended meaning of the California Constitution written in 1879 because he personally supports same-sex marriage. Whatever you may think of same-sex marriage, Kramer’s decision is legally wrong.

* * *

For a much longer essay about gay marriage from a libertarian perspective, read Jane Galt’s essay (hat tip: voluntaryXchange). Yet another rational non-religion based argument supporting traditional marriage.

Comments

Small correction to your blog, the part of the Equal Protection Clause in the California Constitution that supports gay marriage is Article 1 Section 7(b):

A citizen or class of citizens may not be granted privileges or immunities not granted on the same terms to all citizens.