Duncan Hunter Slams Proposition 8 Ruling for Subverting the Will of the People

AJM: Today the Judge in the California Proposition 8 court case, just now, overturned the will of the people on prop 8.

DH: What on earth was his basis? We amended the darn constitution! First, we vote that it is only one man – one woman. Then they say, “no, the state constitution overrules you”. Then we say fine, we’ll amend the constitution!

AJM: Yep. Let me see if I can find it real quick what his reasoning was. Here it is. An article in the LA Times, all of 10 minutes old here. No, this one just says the proponents of 8 plan to appeal. But I think one of the main reasons why is that the judge is probably a little light in the loafers. Wait, here it is:

"Although Proposition 8 fails to possess even a rational basis, the evidence presented at trial shows that gays and lesbians are the type of minority strict scrutiny was designed to protect.”

“Plaintiffs do not seek recognition of a new right. To characterize plaintiffs' objective as "the right to same-sex marriage" would suggest that plaintiffs seek something different from what opposite-sex couples across the state enjoy -- namely, marriage. Rather, plaintiffs ask California to recognize their relationships for what they are: marriages."

In other words this clown is a true believer in homosexual rights, is what it comes down to.

DH: I want to look at his full ruling. But did he overrule them on the basis of the US Constitution?

DH: I’m trying to read between the lines of what you just told me. That can’t be a reason! My point is we re-wrote the constitution, which is the supreme law of the state of California, for California. So if we say that this is a constitutional right or a constitutional mandate, you can’t usurp a constitutional provision with the constitution. (laughs). You can’t say one constitutional provision is rendered unconstitutional by another constitutional provision! So I’m trying to get my hands around what you just described to me. I’d have to look at the entire thing. Because right now, it makes no sense.

I’d have to look at the rationale. I’d say it’s clear that the court, this judge, is CLEARLY trying to usurp the will of the people.

AJM: Yeah, listen to this. Here’s the last sentence in this piece that they published here:

"Proposition 8 places the force of law behind stigmas against gays and lesbians, including: gays and lesbians do not have intimate relationships similar to heterosexual couples; gays and lesbians are not as good as heterosexuals; and gay and lesbian relationships do not deserve the full recognition of society."

DH: Well there just isn’t enough info here. But I know this. This proposition was a very strong manifestation of the will of the people of California. And the idea that this judge can come to the conclusion that they don’t need to have any other branches of government, that the court is now supreme, and that the people, manifesting their will, are an unnecessary part of California’s governance, is preposterous. But that’s what the guy is really saying.

There is no area in lawmaking which more directly ties the will of the people to legislation than legislation in which they directly vote on. That is different than having an elected representative who is part of a body vote for something. And then that particular piece of legislation is worked over by that body, then perhaps worked by another body – you have the state assembly and you have the state senate – and ultimately worked by another branch of government, which is the executive branch. When you have a referendum like prop 8, people themselves get to vote on a direct piece of legislation, un-amended and untainted by outside interests. And untainted by special interests, I might add. Because obviously we all know that the homosexual lobby - if you look at the laws in California - the homosexual lobby is much more powerful in Sacramento than it is in the electorate of California.

So here you had the most direct manifestation, incidentally as allowed in the state constitution, of government of the people, by the people and for the people. And that’s the direct vote by the people on a proposition. A proposition that was a constitutional amendment!

So basically, we have a nutty District Court judge substituting his own bias for the votes of millions of Californians. Another example of the danger posed by flagrant, liberal courts.