Propped up

Proposition 8 is shelved for the moment, and Jenn gets a marriage proposal as a result:

His reasoning for asking now was that he thinks that the judge’s ruling on the stay means he is confident that his ruling on Prop. 8 will stand on appeal. I think it indicates just the opposite that the judge is not confident so he is try[ing] to force the 9th circuit and the Supreme Court into a corner by increasing the size of the pool of people who will be affected. I don’t want to get married and then have that yanked out from under my feet.

I’m not quite sure how, or technically whether, to respond. I figure the 9th Circuit will agree with the judge, and should the Supremes wind up with the case, it’s pretty much a matter of how Mr. Justice Kennedy is feeling. My first instinct is to counsel caution, although somewhere before the second — let’s call it Instinct 1.5 — I generally recommend that people pay no attention to me in matters of the heart or related organs.


  1. ak4mc »

    14 August 2010 · 11:24 am

    The judge’s doubt as to whether Prop. 8 proponents have standing to appeal his ruling indicates to me a profoundly injudicious temperament.

    It appears not to have occurred to him that the very existence of an appeals process means the question remains open as to whether the voters of California had a right to vote Yes on Prop. 8 — and so long as that question remains open the higher courts can consider whether they are harmed by his ruling solely on that basis.

    Instead, the judge comes off sounding like Hillary Rodham did when she argued, circa Watergate, that President Nixon wasn’t entitled to a legal defense.

  2. jefferson101 »

    14 August 2010 · 4:39 pm

    Leaving aside a whole batch of issues with gay “marriage” in general, and social change imposed by judicial fiat, I’d offer one observation.

    It’s old and sound advice, that’s been around for a long time, and it goes like this:

    “Marry in haste, repent at leisure.”

  3. Jeff Brokaw »

    15 August 2010 · 9:25 am

    “social change imposed by judicial fiat”

    Bingo. The bigger picture — which activists always refuse to accept because it involves risk, and requires more time and work, and is ultimately democratic rather than authoritarian — is that real social change comes about very slowly over decades, and if it doesn’t follow this path, it has no legitimacy. When you’re trying to fight thousands and thousands of years of accumulated social wisdom, that might take more than a couple years. And that’s OK, because accumulated social wisdom has a high intrinsic value.

    Lots of people today don’t get this. They want their change and they want it now. To quote an old co-worker of mine: “yes, and people in hell want ice water”.

  4. jenn1964 »

    16 August 2010 · 7:17 pm


    If you had read my blog then you would know that I did not support the lawsuit against proposition 8 because of concerns about social legitimacy. That said having read the opinion I have to say it isn’t my fault that the prop 8 side put up such a lousy argument, probably on the hopes it would go to the supreme court for reversal. I am not going to cry over their bad legal strategy.

  5. Cries of conspiracy in… « A Conservative Shemale »

    21 August 2010 · 11:02 am

    […] off considerably The Classic Liberal was nice enough to link and older Denise Milani post and Dustbury linked about Mr. X’s marriage proposal. from → Uncategorized ← I thought this was […]

RSS feed for comments on this post