Somebody needs to tell Jeromy Brown that yet another state has upheld a ban on homosexual marriage.
Brown, in true liberal fashion, lost the argument in this thread then ran home with his tail between his legs and declared victory. Amusing as this incident was, it would be funnier watching him and his ilk turn this court decision into some sort of victory for homosexual unions.
The Court of Appeals held that the ban does not, as the American Civil Liberties Union had argued, violate the state constitution. The ruling cannot be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, the plaintiffs said when the case was argued in December...
In an opinion signed by four judges, Judge Glenn T. Harrell Jr., citing a Supreme Court holding on judicial restraint, wrote that, absent evidence of discrimination, "judicial intervention is generally unwarranted no matter how unwisely we may think a political branch has acted." (Emphasis mine)
"In declaring that the State's legitimate interests in fostering procreation and encouraging the traditional family structures in which children are born are related reasonably to the means employed by [the law banning same-sex marriage], our opinion should by no means be read to imply that the General Assembly may not grant and recognize for homosexual persons civil unions or the reasons," wrote Harrell, who is retired from the court but participated in the decision because he was a member when the case was argued.
Hmm. That argument sounds familiar. Oh, yeah. I made it in the debate with Brown. Of course, he didn't like that argument. He, like most liberals, think that if you don't like what the Constitution says, just make shit up and hope you can convince enough naive but dumb people to accept it.
More from the story:
Assistant Attorney General Robert A. Zarnoch, the general assembly counsel, urged the court to let stand the statute that defines marriage as the union of a man and a woman. Arguing that the judiciary should defer to the legislature, Zarnoch noted that no federal or state appellate court in the country has held that, as the plaintiffs argue, there is a fundamental right to same-sex marriage...
Zarnoch said, "An invalidation of Maryland's law would have the unfortunate consequence of placing these issues outside the arena of public debate, outside the legislative and democratic process." (Emphasis mine)
One of the things Brown refused to acknowledge is the importance of society embracing a change, not having it rammed down the collective throat of the electorate. Homosexual activists like to compare their goals with the civil rights movement, but don't acknowledge that there were already laws on the books to support civil rights...they just hadn't been enforced. Similarly, when women sought the right to vote and various other rights, their agenda was brought first through the legislature which wrote laws supporting their aims. It was only once those laws were not enforced that judicial remedies were applied.
As I've stated previously, if you want gay marriage, go through the legislative process. If states want to recognize gay marriage, they have the means to do so.
Cross-posted at Common Sense Political Thought.
|