Marriage Neutering Issues in California, North Carolina

The editorial board of the Los Angeles Times writes that the California Marriage Amendment, voted in as Proposition 8, should be defended, but not by the sponsors. Perhaps that position is about wanting the initiative process to maintain power, perhaps it is the editorial board wanting the 9th Circuit court to get it back so they can overturn the amendment.

Make no mistake, Proposition 8 should die in the courts. But it should fail on its merits - its discriminatory withholding of the right to marry - rather than because the officials who could have defended it wouldn't and no one else was allowed to step in.

Any law discriminates. If I were a wagerin' man, I’d wager most, if not all, of the editorial board also wants "discriminatory withholding of the right to marry". Just go ahead and mention polygamy or incest, and no, again, those aren't the same things as a same-sex relationship (at least, not when they involve both sexes); polygamous and incestuous marriages have historically been recognized in various cultures as actual marriages, unlike same-sex relationships.

In the federal trial, the court allowed ProtectMarriage, an organization that supports Proposition 8, to defend the 2008 initiative. The ban on same-sex marriage was found unconstitutional.

The duly adopted state constitutional amendment isn't a ban.

If state officials are unwilling to stand up for Proposition 8 - or believe that their ability to do so is compromised because they openly opposed the initiative, as Jerry Brown has as governor and previously as state attorney general - the state should be required to hire an attorney to provide the best possible defense.

Who is better, though, then the initiative sponsors? The editorial complains that the sponsors may include out-of-state parties. But aren't some of the marriage neutering lawyers from out of state?

In other marriage neutering news at LATimes.com, Richard Fausset checks in on North Carolina and what the situation means for President Obama.

North Carolina Republicans, who recently won control of the state legislature for the first time since Reconstruction, will begin debate Monday on whether to let voters decide next year on a proposed constitutional amendment that would ban gay marriage in their state, the Associated Press reports.

ould it really ban "gay marriage"? I mean, I already covered the erroneous "ban" label and my marriage is rather gay.

The state already has a law banning [neutering] marriage. The referendum would determine whether the prohibition would be enshrined in the state constitution.

So as to prevent some judge in the state from neutering marriage statewide. This is what was done in California. We first passed Prop 22, a law, as a reminder to the legislature and the courts that marriage unites a bride and a groom, then we passed Proposition 8, a constitutional amendment, which was added to the ballot because we realized some judges just might be crazy enough to think there could be a marriage withouta bride, or without a groom. Californians would have adopted it anyway, but then some judges DID show they were that crazy after it was alrady headed to the ballot, so we went ahead and voted "YES" to counter the error of the court.

The piece goes on to talk about how getting out the marriage-defense vote could hurt Obama's chances of carrying the state.