Los Angeles Times Tried to Tell the Court What to Do

I couldn't let this editorial in the Los Angeles Times slip by. They express hope that the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals sees things their way from what scant information was provided in issuing a stay. I'm not sure why they saw a need to run this, seeing as how we already know their opinion, but they did.

The appellate courts should recognize the undeniable merit in Walker's opinion: Homosexuals as a group have long suffered from many kinds of discrimination and thus require the fullest protection of the courts.

I agree that homosexual people, as human beings, should be protected under the law. Marriage licenses aren't needed for that. Or does the editorial board also think that unmarried heterosexual people not fully protected by the law, either?

There is no reliable evidence that [neutering] marriage is harmful to children or that it is a threat to social stability.

It hasn't been implemented in more than a handful of places, recently. I have no proof that jumping into a pool without water will hurt me, because I haven't done it. But it should be intuitive that it is harmful to deny the difference - and the importance in that difference - between the sexes. And I know it wouldn't be good to jump into a pool without water, even though I've never seen anyone do it.

Marriage is a fundamental right, and the attempt to withhold it from a particular group — whether mixed-race or same-sex couples — is irrational, immoral and unconstitutionally discriminatory.

There is a fundamental right to freedom of association. Laws against cohabitation and fornication helped to form an actual ban on "interracial" marriage in the states that refused to license that old-as-time tradition. And those were marriages because they brought together a bride and a groom. Things are different now as far as the freedom of assocation, but marriage has always been something involving both a man and a woman. People have their freedom of association. They can go ahead and make vows and commitments and homes and plans together, and the government will not stop them. But forcing the rest of us to break with all of the great moral thinkers in history, to allow a minority to dictate what our position is going to be is too much.

Whenever the higher courts have cited marriage as a fundamental right, it has always involved uniting the sexes. But the editorial board and Walker want to force the people of California to license something else as marriage.

Fundamental rights can't be "withheld" from a group by government, because the government does not grant such rights. It only recognizes such rights and protects them (when functioning properly) and infringes upon them when overstepping authority. Same-sex couples have their fundamental right to association.

There is a fundamental right to vote, but only to vote in the confines of the existing system. There is a fundamental right to privacy, but shy people can't keep their picture and identifying information off of their driver's license. There is a fundamental right to free enterprise, but certain conditions have to be met for a business license. The fundamental right to these things, as they are regulated by the state, come with certain conditions. Who sets those conditions? Lawmakers. And sometimes, we are the lawmakers.

But notice that the editorial board says it is immoral to hold back from issuing brideless or groomless couples marriage licenses. Aren't we supposed to keep morality out of this? But since the Los Angeles Times has cited morality, I'd like to ask where these morals come from? Or is this a matter of "immoral" simply meaning "something we don't like"?