Sarah Palin was not a train wreck in the Vice Presidential Debate last night, but three things stood out for me.
Wow. This guy in Michigan who was denied admission to the bar there sounds a little nuts:
“I have faith in the Supreme Court, and in particular Justice John Paul Stevens, who is the true guardian of our constitutional rights.”
Whenever somebody whips out that word “true” in a context like that, it makes me cringe a little. Sort of like when people start talking about “true believers.”
Oh dear. Bush apologist, McCain supporter, and former senator Rick Santorum has offered his addlepated opinion on the recent gay marriage ruling in California (Fedora Tip: 2 Political Junkies. He says:
“…The state Supreme Court there ruled, 4-3, that same-sex couples can marry. In doing so, four judges rejected a statute that passed in a referendum with 61 percent of the vote that defined marriage as a union of one man and one woman. It’s merely the latest in a string of court decisions that have overturned the overwhelming will of the people.”
As another blogger (a valedictorian law student no less) pointed out, sometimes the will of the people is in conflict with constitutional law. He says, “California’s Supreme Court did not override the will of the people; it simply looked at two different expressions of the people’s will and decided that the constitutional expression trumped the statutory expression, which is entirely proper.” I agree. If it is truly the will of the people of California to limit marriage to monogamous heterosexual couples, they’ll have to amend their state constitution.
In response to Gutter Ball Master’s post, “Dr. Paul May Do Harm“, I offer the following article as rebuttal. I do not claim to be in total agreement with it, but I present it as an opposing viewpoint.
I Favor Discrimination
“If ever anyone wants to discredit me, he can cite the title of this article. I am giving it away on a silver platter in order to make one point: Freedom includes the freedom to discriminate. Discrimination is nothing more than making distinctions and being selective. Without discrimination, freedom to choose is an empty exercise. I favor the freedom to choose. Therefore, I favor discrimination. Not only do I favor discrimination, I discriminate constantly. And so does everyone else.”
It should be noted that the good doctor rejected the law on privacy, federal ineptitude, states rights, and constitutional authority grounds. Here’s his defense in his own words, emphasis mine (Fedora Tip to Chronicles of Dissent).
A few days ago, the California Supreme Court struck down a statutory regime that gave same-sex couples essentially the same rights and duties as married couples, but called them “registered domestic partners” instead of “married couples.” This, the court said, violates the equal protection clause of the California Constitution.
The court did not say whether same-sex couples should be allowed to marry and have their relationship called and recognized as a “marriage.” As the court pointed out on pages 4 and 5 of the slip opinion: