While California gays lick their wounds over ballot measure Proposition 8 passed Tuesday, which amends the California Constitution to define marriage as a heterosexual act, there are some who say this opens the door for what would surely be a controversial court finding.
"It's both a legal and moral domino," said SYOP law professor, Dan Webster. "As soon as heterosexual men and women began having heterosexual sex with each other, it should have come as no surprise that one day everyone would think they had a right to sex, including gays. Morally, the family values groups have seen sex as an after-marriage event. Ergo, e pluribus unum, it follows that even those who financially backed Yes On Prop 8 - Mormons, Catholics, Focus on the Family - would agree that those who have sex should only have it under the legal and moral tenets of marriage. Since under the Constitution there is no prohibition of sex, the only way to keep cetain segments of the public - like homosexuals - from getting married in their pursuit of happiness, is to prohibit marriage altogether, including for heterosexuals."
One group is taking it one step further, planning to place a proposition on the ballot criminalizing marriage. Referencing Article VIII of the Constitution - dropped from the formal document due to space concerns-an attorney for If We Can't Have It No One Can, a civil rights body that pursues Jeffersonian intent, said that Thomas Jefferson "clearly wanted all people to have the same rights in their pursuit of happiness."
"To ensure equality from what Jefferson called 'pissants who want to urinate over everyone else's freedoms,' Jefferson had called for Constitutional safeguards," said READ THE REST OF THE POTENTIAL LEGAL RAMIFICATIONS HERE
Award-winning TV writer, Steve Young, is author of "Great Failures of the Extremely Successful" (www.greatfailure.com) and blogs at the appropriately named steveyoungonpolitics.com
2
1
1
