Supreme Court Hides From Gays

The LA Times reports:

Supreme_CourtWhen justices intervened to stop proceedings from airing online, some saw sympathy for supporters of Proposition 8 – and a lack of faith in the district judge who will first decide the measure’s fate.

Reporting from Washington – The U.S. Supreme Court cast its first vote last week on the legal challenge to California’s voter initiative barring same-sex marriage, and some experts said it was a bad omen for those who hope gays and lesbians will win a constitutional right to such unions.

The 5-4 decision, with conservatives in the majority, intervened in the San Francisco district court trial on behalf of the defenders of Proposition 8.

The high court rebuked U.S. District Chief Judge Vaughn Walker for seeking to give the public a chance to view the proceedings on the Internet. In its opinion, the majority saw the dispute through the same lens as the opponents of gay marriage and decided that they — not homosexuals — faced a hostile public climate of harassment and intimidation.

This whole thing is a circus clown show.  Let me tell you the real reason why they don’t want this case publicized.  They don’t want it publicized because they know the only way gays are going to win this thing is through arguing on a natural rights basis. 

Allowing the public to view a case that revolves around natural rights is inherently dangerous to the entire judicial system.  The justices know that such arguments undermine the very basis of the power the State has unjustly taken for itself.

The first amendment in the bill of rights is clear:  ANY State sanctioning or restriction of a religious institution is forbidden.  Gay, straight, polygamist, or any other kind of marriage is strictly the purview of the Church.  The State has no authority to legislate legal benefits based on the religious institution of marriage.  This is a fundamental natural right of man. 

However our legal system over the course of decades has legitimized, through court proceedings, the State’s authority to issue special rights and favors based on a religious institution.  The justices know they are trapped in a no-win situation.

They know it is morally repugnant to prevent gays, or any other group, from having equal protection under the law.  The federal justices also know they have no authority to meddle in the minutia of state marriage law, unless those laws violate the constitution.  The only way state marriage laws violate the constitution is through violating the first amendment or equal protection clauses.  Such an argument would outlaw all State sanctioned marriage across the board if they were to side with the gays or mandate states must accept marriage between anyone.

Do you see the predicament?  If they uphold the gay marriage ban, they know in the future their ruling will be in the same vile category of Dred Scott v. Sandford where the Supreme Court upheld slavery.  All of those federal justices know it is morally repugnant to deny equal protection.  But at the same time, if they side with the gays, they have to give a reason as to why.  If they base their reason on equal protection, then all states must accept gays, polygamists, and even people who want to marry their siblings.  Such an outcome would undoubtedly draw widespread anger from the public that has been indoctrinated since birth to believe the State has the authority to determine who can and can not be married and to set legal benefits based on that religious institution.  If they side with the gays on first amendment rights, then all marriage law across the country would be nullified.  Again, such an outcome would inflame the brainwashed hordes.

Stuck between a rock and a hard place.

Ban gay marriage, allow all manner of marriage, or nullify all marriage law period.  Those are the choices.   The arguments made in the court rooms surrounding this are surely going to be based on natural rights.  The judiciary can not allow those arguments to be viewed by the public.

The outcome of the gay marriage case will have wide spread implications across all manner of legislation, well outside just marriage laws.