Pro-SSM Judge Argues Against SSM

In effect, at least, Justice Riendhart argued against himself.

The argumentation of SSMers is the best source of arguments against SSM. Not best in the sense of starting from first principles and deducing what marriage is and what justly flows from that determination. But best in the amusing but fateful sense in which the terms of arguing in favor of the imposition of SSM unfailingly pull the carpet out from under the proponents of SSM.

For a prominent example of this, I recommend reading Ed Whelan's recent blogpost in which he provides the text of the petition of Prop 8 proponents who have used Justice Reinhardt's own pro-SSM judicial opinion to demonstrate the error made by the federal panel that voted 2-1 in favor of the SSM side in the case.

http://www.nationalreview.com/bench-memos/291664/prop-8-proponents-petition-for-rehearing-en-banc-ed-whelan#more

The petition touches on --

1. Generous treatment of nonmrriage in CA.
2. Timing of CA Marriage Amendment.
3. Federal precedents.
4. Distinguishing Romer.
5. Distinguishing man-woman couples.
6. Explaining the ubiquity of marriage.

It is all rather obvious and uncomplicated.

The petition is plain-spoken and not even the most eager pro-SSMer can reasonably deny that Rienhardt got it wrong. But we know that few if any will concede as much.

We know because few if any were appalled by Walker's shennanigans and most openly embraced his misconduct as the latest wonderful example of what they have come to expect of judges.

And thus the corruption of judicial review and of our form of governance has gone on apace in full glare of the open farce in California and with the hearty applause of SSMers far and wide.