Legal Precedents You Probably Don't Really Want

prop 8, gay, same sex, marriage, opine, editorials, stupid,
no matter what you say, Jose.

Jose Solano, of the Opine Editorials, makes either the stupidest or the most disingenuous argument about the Prop 8 decision I have seen yet.

While the California Supreme Court recognizes the constitutionality of Proposition 8 it simultaneous violates the Constitution by stating that 18,000 same-sex "marriages" will be recognized in California. This is a bizarre maneuver that demonstrates that the court has no interest in altering its judicial activism posture. It saw clearly that it could not overturn Proposition 8 but refused to accept what the amendment actually says.

Proposition 8 clearly and unequivocally states:

"Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."

So how on earth can the Supreme Court rule that 18,000 same-sex couples have marriages that are valid and recognized in California? This is an interpretation direct from the twilight zone of Orwellian reasoning.

First of all, I'm not sure you know what Orwellian reasoning is, but this isn't it. For one thing, as the Court clearly stated in its decision:

it is well-established principle that an amendment is not retroactive unless it is clear that the voters intended it to be, and that was not the case with Proposition 8.

So, according to Jose, the Court following well established legal principles is Orwellian. Seriously?

Jose makes his argument even worse with the following example:

Let's put this in perspective by a couple of examples. If the law states that you must be 18 years old to drink alcohol but then a law is passed that says everyone must be 21 years old to drink, can that possibly be interpreted to mean that an exception will be made for everyone not yet 21 without that being stipulated in the new law?

Except that what you want to do is go back and find everyone between the ages of 18 and 21 who was drinking, while it was perfectly legal for them to drink, and arrest them under the new law.

Allow me to give you an example of where the legal precedent you want set would lead. Suppose a law is passed that requires cars to get at least 50 miles to the gallon. Under our current system, you, and everyone else, would be able to keep their lower gas mileage cars, but you couldn't buy a new car that gets less than 50 mpg. Under your desired precedent, the government would be justified in seizing all the cars with lower gas mileage and forcing you to either buy a new car, or walk.

Do you really want that?