Random Nuclear Strikes

It isn’t the least bit astonishing that the Seattle Times printed Letters to the Editor on the decision by the Supreme Court of Washington to uphold the State’s Defense of Marriage Act.

Nor is it at all astonishing that every one of the letters they printed yesterday were from people who didn’t like the court’s decision, as you can see here.

Today however, the Times finally decided to show both sides of the argument, by printing two letters from each. How kind of them.

I often go through the Letters to the Editor section to show you the absurdity in this town, but today I would like to show you a Letter that made me say “Damn, I wish I’d written that”.

Editor, The Times:

I am perplexed by The Times’ discontent with the state Supreme Court’s decision. The courts do not exist to save us from ourselves or to fix legislative results. They are not the great diviners and solvers of every social issue. They are by constitutional definition conservative bodies. They should carefully guard against substituting their own preferences for the law and the Constitution.

In this case, the state Supreme Court lived up to its mandate.

In fact, the Washington state Supreme Court did the citizens a great favor. By declining to wave a magic wand over the word “marriage” and redefine it to mean something that it has never meant throughout all of recorded human history, the justices have provided the opportunity for the legislative process to work as it was intended.

Wholesale redefining of terms cheapens the currency of language and distorts debate. Any expansion or redefinition of marriage is serious business properly left to legislation or perhaps the constitutional-amendment process.

When courts intrude into the legislative sphere in complex, highly charged issues where the legislative history is clear and Constitution silent, they create controversy and conflict that go on for generations. This is perhaps the greatest lesson to be learned from Roe v. Wade.

There will be some kind of legal resolution to the issue of gay relationships. I think a fully debated, legislative solution offers the best hope of something all citizens can live with going into the future. The legislators will not have a court decision to hide behind. The wisdom of everyday people will become part of the final equation through open public debate.

This is something to cheer about.

Frank Klapach, Port Orchard

In a couple weeks time, the Analog Wife and I will be travelling to the Port Orchard area to look into the prospect of purchasing our next residence there. I will certainly feel in better company if more Constitution-minded folks like Mr. Klapach live there.

What with my previous, less than flattering posts here about the past decisions of the Supreme Court of Washington State, I have to say a big thank you to the Justices for their 5-4 decision yesterday in favor of the Defense of Marriage Act.

As I said yesterday, as well as previous to that, courts have no right in writing law, only in interpreting it. This decision will lead to a more peacable State of Washington, in regards to this issue. It has shown those who wish to push the politics they can’t get passed via the people through the judiciary that they will have to actually do some legwork to legalize same-sex marriages is Washington.

In fact, if they would only try to get a Citizens Initiative movement going, not only would I sign the petition, when it made it to the ballot, I would vote for it.

Here in Washington, only around 250,000 signatures are necessary to get an Initiative onto the ballot, and if the organizers of this issue cannot get that many signatures, what with the Pride Parade right before singature turn in time, then they really should just STFU about it.

Which really makes me wonder whether it was laziness or if they really don’t think the votes, since they tried to push it through the courts first.

The news story about the decision is here

There are a number of briefs on this decision, due to a number of justices deciding to not only sign onto the brief of the side they decided with, but also their own. It is a bit dry, but if you’re interested, they are here in pdf form.

Actually, today will be the day that the Supreme Court of Washington State is to deliver their ruling on same-sex marriage in Washington State.

As I’ve said before here, I personally don’t care about the issue one way or the other, I just don’t want to be told by a judicial office what is going to be law in my state of residence. They supposed to interpret the law, not define it.

My greatest hope, and I don’t even think it is possible, is for the court to demand that it be put to a vote of the people of Washington. Sort of a “Guiness Book of World Records Jury of Peers”.

We’ll see.