Tuesday, October 21, 2014

Ryan T. Anderson and the dead stalking horse he is beating

Ryan T. Anderson
Ryan T. Anderson
Ryan T, Anderson, a staunch Defender of the Faith®, is still trying to convince others (and perhaps himself) that there is something unconstitutional about all of the rulings that support same-sex marriage. Now he blames President Obama and liberals in general. Writing in the Daily Signal (which is a Heritage Foundation blog disguised as a news site):
This is a case study in how liberals “evolve” on policy. First they embrace a policy change. If they can’t convince a majority of Americans to vote for their preferred policy, they discover that the Constitution requires their preferred policy. So, according to the Obama of today, the Obama of early 2012 held an unconstitutional view of marriage. Or, perhaps, it wasn’t unconstitutional back then but it is now.

Mr. Anderson misstates the record. In 2008, while running for president, Obama clearly stated his opinion that DOMA was unconstitutional and should be repealed. It is the repeal of DOMA via United States v Windsor that created the current chain reaction. President Obama did not write the opinion in DOMA as he is not a justice of the United States Supreme Court.

In 2012, then President Obama, during the campaign, decided to support same-sex marriage. He was reelected and, according to surveys a majority of Americans do support recognition of same-sex marriage. Obama's view of DOMA was a legal conclusion. Obama's views on same-sex marriage pertain to public policy. It's an important difference. The former is stated as a legal fact while the latter is an informed opinion.

Anderson goes on to quote crazy Ted Cruz who said:
It is beyond dispute that when the 14th Amendment was adopted 146 years ago, as a necessary post-Civil War era reform, it was not imagined to also mandate same-sex marriage…. [It is a] preposterous assumption that the People of the United States somehow silently redefined marriage in 1868 when they ratified the 14th Amendment.
Mr. Cruz is well aware of the fact that the original intent is irrelevant. There are more than a dozen important 14th Amendment cases that were never imagined by the authors of the amendment. Here are just three:
  1. Brown v. Board of Education (1954): Regardless of the equality of segregated schools, the Court ruled that separate is inherently unequal. Thus public school segregation based on race was found to be in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.
  2. Gideon v. Wainwright (1963): A unanimous United States Supreme Court said that state courts are required under the 14th Amendment to provide counsel in criminal cases to represent defendants who are unable to afford to pay their own attorneys.
  3. Loving v. Virginia (1964): With a unanimous decision, the United States Supreme Court held that the Equal Protection Clause required strict scrutiny to apply to all race-based classifications. Furthermore, the Court concluded that the law was rooted in racial discrimination, making it impossible to satisfy a compelling government interest.
It is a virtual certainty that the authors of the 14th Amendment did not imagine that they were mandating integration, defendants rights or the right for interracial couples to marry.

Anderson continues in a similar fashion quoting various people. He ultimately concludes:
Citizens are, of course, free to redefine marriage policy to include same-sex relationships, but so too should citizens be free to retain in law the historic definition of marriage as the union of a man and a woman—as citizens in a majority of states have done.

Nothing less than the future of our society and the course of constitutional government in the United States are at stake. And as Obama’s latest evolution shows, we’re not only redefining marriage, we’re redefining our Constitution—making it a living, breathing, evolving document.
According to that logic, citizens should be free to do just about anything which includes oppression of a minority. States should still be permitted to segregate schools or prohibit interracial marriage. They should be free to permit the product of illegal searches by police to be entered into evidence (Mapp v. Ohio). Apparently the 1964 Civil Rights Act is unconstitutional per se. Maybe Jews should be prohibited from state civil service jobs. What else can states do to piss off a minority community? Muslims are certainly within easy reach of discriminatory laws.

This is just rubbish from someone intent on conforming US law to the teachings of the Catholic Church. I suspect, by the way, that Anderson is becoming an Opus Dei numerary. Which pill does Mr. Anderson take for that?

No comments:

Post a Comment

Please be civil and do NOT link to anti-gay sites!

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.