The Editor's Desk

These days, most speeches from gay activist organization leaders tend to inspire eye rolls from me. I’m not that interested in identity-based politics, and it frequently feels impossible to connect with gay political movements unless you’ve purchased the entire liberal identity package and think the government can make everybody get along. You also have to be willing to act like a victim, and I can’t stand doing that.

However, as a libertarian, my belief in the bedrock foundation of civil liberties is no different from theirs (the difference is where the foundation ends). I believe, and I have said before, that marriage is a right. We treat marriage as a right. As such I believe the U.S. Constitution already endorses gay marriage in the Ninth Amendment: “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” Essentially, just because a right isn’t laid out specifically in the Constitution does not mean said right doesn’t exist. But that’s considered a radical argument in today’s era of nanny government. The government gives you rights now, when it once existed to make sure your rights weren’t taken away.

I’m getting a little too far ahead, actually, as yesterday’s gay marriage decision was based on California’s Constitution, not the United States’. The judges determined denying marriage to same-sex couples violated the state’s constitution.

The responses from gay marriage opponents have been predictable, but no less frustrating. Apparently the definition of an activist judge is one that makes decisions you don’t like. Consider the response from our own county supervisor, Brad Mitzelfelt: “In 2000, the people of this state overwhelmingly supported Proposition 22, defining marriage in state law as a union between a man and a woman. With this decision, the Court has chosen to overrule the will of millions of California voters.”

Well, yes, Mr. Mitzelfelt, when millions of California voters approve a proposition that violates the state’s constitution, the court is supposed to strike it down. Determining the constitutionality of legislation is what the state Supreme Court is for.

Our congressional representative, Howard “Buck” McKeon, is also either dense or cynically manipulating the matter to get votes: “[U]nder no circumstance should the courts be allowed to show such utter disregard for the democratic process. In this case, it appears partisan politics and personal opinions are taking precedence over the rule of law; and that’s an alarming turn of events.”

Yes, actually, the court is supposed to overrule the democratic process if the democratic process produces an outcome that violates the state constitution. That’s how the “rule of law” works. Now, if you want to debate whether the judges have misinterpreted the wording of the constitution, that’s one thing, but a legislator who doesn’t understand the role of the court is a legislator who isn’t fit for office.

Let’s try changing the parties involved here to see if I can’t get my point across. According to a 2007 report from the California Secretary of State, registered Democrats make up 42.5 percent of all voters and Republicans account for 34.2 percent in this state.

So let’s say a group of Democrats got together a petition that said the State of California would not recognize marriages between registered Republicans. In theory, such a petition could pass, given the Democrats have the Republicans outnumbered. Would Mitzelfelt and McKeon accept the will of the people under such circumstances?

No, of course not, because, and I’m sure they’d agree, the state doesn’t have the right to deny the marriages of Republicans. So what makes this case different?

The state has no business deciding the legitimacy of a family, nor does it have any business validating relationships between consenting adults. I will not vote for candidates who believe that the government is the hammer to help them beat people into submission so that they may build their fantasy utopia. If private individuals choose to believe my marriage wouldn’t be valid with another man, or if churches decline to perform them, then that’s certainly their right. But I won’t have the government making that decision for me — or them.

Don’t expect my vote in June, Mitzelfelt. I don’t vote for those with no respect for basic civil liberties.

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.