I really can’t remember the last time I enjoyed watching snow fall this much.  It may go all the way back to those thrilling days of yesteryear when I lived at Tahoe.

I just finished shoveling a foot of snow from our 12-mile long driveway – give or take a few feet.  With another foot possible, I thought it prudent to get out there while the getting was good.

Fresh bread just came out of the oven, and we’re having Clam Chowder for dinner.  Victor just made a Cannoli Cake for dessert.

It’s awesome!

The Case Begins

On Monday morning, January 11, 2010, Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker will begin arguments in what will most assuredly be the definitive case in same-sex marriage.

Arguing the case for the plaintiffs Kris Perry and Sandy Stier, and Paul Katami and Jeff Zarrillo will be an interesting legal duo, attorneys Theodore Olson and David Boies. You may (or may not) recall that these two men argued opposite sides of the Gore/Bush case which decided the 2000 election. Former Bush Solicitor General Ted Olson is known as a rock-solid member of the conservative legal movement. But sometimes, the Constitution trumps political ideology…

They stated in a press release right after the California Supreme Court upheld Prop 8:

“Yesterday, the California Supreme Court said that the California Constitution compels the State to discriminate against gay men and lesbians who have the temerity to wish to express their love and commitment to one another by getting married,” Olson said. “These are our neighbors, coworkers, teachers, friends, and family, and, courtesy of Prop 8, California now prohibits them from exercising this basic, fundamental right of humanity. Whatever discrimination California law now might permit, I can assure you, the United States Constitution does not.”

“Mr. Olson and I are from different ends of the political spectrum, but we are fighting this case together because Proposition 8 clearly and fundamentally violates the freedoms guaranteed to all of us by the Constitution,” Boies said. “Every American has a right to full equality under the law. Same sex couples are entitled to the same marriage rights as straight couples. Any alternative is separate and unequal and relegates gays and lesbians to a second class status.” . . .

Today’s lawsuit argues that the California’s Constitution — as amended by Proposition 8 — violates the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution, a provision with which all state laws must comply. Relegating gays and lesbians to “separate but unequal” domestic partnerships violates the U.S. Constitution, the suit states. California’s domestic partnership law is not an adequate substitute for access to the State’s institution of civil marriage, the suit states, because domestic partnerships do not provide all of the legal and government benefits and protections that marriage does.

“More than 30 years ago, the United States Supreme Court recognized that marriage is one of the basic rights of man,” the suit states, referring to the Court’s decision in Loving v. Virginia, which struck down bans on interracial marriage.

The trial is going to be televised live to several courthouses in California, Oregon, Washington, and New York. Video of the trial will be posted on YouTube several hours later. This, of course, has the Defendant-Intervenes reeling and prompted a last-ditch effort to Justice Kennedy of the US Supreme Court to halt the cameras.

Andy Pugno, a lawyer for the Proposition 8 campaign stated, “Many supporters of Proposition 8 who are being dragged into this case are fearful about being questioned about their personal, political and religious believes on the stand and having that televised.”

The American Foundation for Equal Rights – which has brought the case on behalf of the plaintiffs – stated:

“Those who want to ban gay marriage spent millions of dollars to reach the public with misleading ads, rallies and news conferences during the campaign to pass Prop. 8. We are curious why they now fear the publicity they once craved,” said Chad Griffin, Board President of the American Foundation for Equal Rights. “Apparently transparency is their enemy, but the people deserve to know exactly what it is they have to hide.”

One defendant-intervene, Hak-Shing William Tam, petitioned the court to remove him after petitioning the court to include him. “I dedicated the majority of my working hours between January 2008 and November 2008 toward qualifying Proposition 8 for the ballot and campaigning for its enactment,” he told the judge in May in urging to be named an official party to the lawsuit.

He didn’t mention cameras, though, as his reason ror wanting to be removed. It is more likely he fears that his anti-gay bias will harm the case. It seems that Tam wrote a letter to his church members stating:

“One by one, other states would fall into Satan’s hands … Every child, when growing up, would fantasize marrying someone of the same sex. More children would become homosexuals.”

Really. “Every child, when growing up, would fantasize marrying someone of the same sex.” Every child. He said that.

But Ted Olson sees it differently.

In a column by Michael Smerconish in the Philadelphia Inquirer:

Olson rightly pointed out during our conversation that “society suffers no benefit” from outlawing same-sex marriage. There isn’t any “real basis,” he said, for the belief that legalizing such relationships would invite the deterioration of heterosexual marriage or encourage polygamy. Nor does his case compel Christianity – or any other religion with conflicting tenets – to recognize gay marriage.

“What we’re arguing does not prevent a religious organization from having their own rules or their own standards or their own principles,” Olson noted. “But we’re talking about a civic relationship recognized by the state, and it should not be denied to individuals on the basis of their sexual orientation.” In other words, Olson is motivated by principles of limited government as well as individual freedom.

What the suit charges is that Proposition 8:

• Violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
• Violates the Due Process Clause by impinging on fundamental liberties.
• Singles out gays and lesbians for a disfavored legal status, thereby creating a category of “second-class citizens.”
• Discriminates on the basis of gender.
• Discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation.

And through Proposition 8, California distinguishes its residents into 4 separate and unequal groups:

• Opposite-sex couples who have full marriage rights
• Same-sex couples who have no marriage rights.
• Same-sex couples who were married between June and November 2009 whose marriages are recognized by the state; however, they have no right to remarry if divorced or widowed.
• Same-sex couples married in another state who may petition for state recognition of their marriage.

It’s interesting to note that while one of the stalwarts of the conservative legal movement advocates for gay marriage, our elected officials are – not surprisingly – silent on the issue.

In doing a search on Nancy Pelosi’s House of Representatives website, the last mention she had of ‘gay marriage’ was Thursday, May 15, 2008 when the California Supreme Court ruled that gay marriage was constitutional. She was pleased. Harry Reid has never put the two words together.

President Obama supported gay marriage when he was running for the Senate in Illinois.

In a candidate survey in 1996, he responded to a question by writing “I favor legalizing same-sex marriages, and would fight efforts to prohibit such marriages.” He was also asked if he supported a document called The Marriage Resolution, which states “RESOLVED, the state should not interfere with same-gender couples who choose to marry and share fully and equally in the rights, responsibilities and commitment of civil marriage.” In his own hand he wrote: “I would support such a resolution.”

And then he found religion and decided he wasn’t for gay marriage after all.

Oh well.

At least it’s comforting to see that true conservatives actually understand the concept of government intervention into our lives and of the separation of church and state.

Barry Goldwater said it best:

There is no position on which people are so immovable as their religious beliefs. There is no more powerful ally one can claim in a debate than Jesus Christ, or God, or Allah, or whatever one calls this supreme being. But like any powerful weapon, the use of God’s name on one’s behalf should be used sparingly. The religious factions that are growing throughout our land are not using their religious clout with wisdom. They are trying to force government leaders into following their position 100 percent. If you disagree with these religious groups on a particular moral issue, they complain, they threaten you with a loss of money or votes or both. I’m frankly sick and tired of the political preachers across this country telling me as a citizen that if I want to be a moral person, I must believe in ‘A,’ ‘B,’ ‘C,’ and ‘D.’ Just who do they think they are? And from where do they presume to claim the right to dictate their moral beliefs to me?

The reality is, denying civil rights should not be put up to popular vote or legislative mood. The case is now rightly where it belongs – in the courts.

Our elected leaders will stay in the background and fully support or sadly shrug ‘oh well’ at whatever the final result is.