Elena Kagan and Prop 8

I must admit that I have not followed the confirmation proceedings for the newest Supreme Court Justice well. If I had wanted to be informed I am quite certain that I would not go to One News Now or any other Right-wing source for my information. This article illustrates my concern well. The 'experts' say that Kagan will be a solid vote for "homosexual 'marriage'" without bothering to give any real reason for that opinion. I have a feeling that what they mean is that she will not cast a vote to infringe upon the liberties of a segment of the population that the Christian Right disagrees with.

The whole Christian Right is in uproar over the CA judge that overturned the Prop 8 amendment. So was Judge Vaughn Walker correct? I am inclined to think that he was. And if the case does make it to the Supreme Court I hope that they will uphold his decision.

I read some of the text of the judgement, it is long, over 130 pages, so I didn't read every word. I am going to touch on some of the things I did read.

First for the conclusion drawn by Judge Walker.

"Conclusion
Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license. Indeed, the evidence shows Proposition 8 does nothing more than enshrine in the California Constitution the notion that opposite-sex couples are superior to same-sex couples.Because California has no interest in discriminating against gay men and lesbians, and because Proposition 8 prevents California from fulfilling its constitutional obligation to provide marriages on an equal basis, the court concludes that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional."

The portion of the US Constitution he refers to is the 14th Amendment:
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

If the law of CA recognizes marriage for heterosexuals it must also grant the same priviledge to homosexuals. The belief that homosexuality is sinful is a religious one. I agree with those on the right that homosexuality is wrong, but I don't want the government making moral judgements.

Part of the text in the judgement is:

"A state's interest in an enactment must of course be secular in nature. The state does not have an interest in enforcing private moral or religious beliefs without an accompanying secular purpose."

That is true.

The notion that homosexual marriage will degrade or in any other way affect heterosexual marriage is ridiculous. How can it affect my marriage? Homosexuals marrying will not change the commitment my husband and I have made. Homosexuals being allowed to have a marriage license and all of the rights, responsibilites, and privileges that go with it, "will not affect the number of opposite-sex couples who marry, divorce, cohabit, have children outside of marriage or otherwise affect the stability of opposite-sex marriages".

There was one part of the argument against Prop 8 that I disagree with. "Religious beliefs that gay and lesbian relationships are sinful harm gays and lesbians." How is that? I've never harmed anyone who is homosexual. How can my belief that they are wrong for their sexual proclivity harm them unless they allow it to affect them? I know people who believe that somethings I do are 'sinful'. It does not harm me for them to hold that view.

So, to end. If Kagan would vote that a 'ban' on homosexual marriage is unconstitutional I believe that would be a good thing. If that is the only argument the Right has against her, it isn't much.