Posts Tagged ‘same sex “marriage”’
Don’t you hate it when you have to go to a family reunion and you have to listen to some wacky relative go on and on about the same thing they go on and on about at every family reunion?
Aunty Jan does that a lot, and I dread going to the front page of The Australian for fear of seeing another one of her stupid, inflammatory headlines almost as much as I dislike being told about my shortcomings by relatives who, frankly, are way more disturbed than I am (lucky for me, most of them are overseas).
I hope I don’t get the reputation for being obsessed with Janet Albrechtsen. I know she says so many crappy things which really should be ignored, but once in a while she displays such ignorance and bigotry that I just can’t help but point it out for the amusement of my dear Readers. This week’s masterpiece has been the subject of Aunty Jan’s ire not less that twice in the last six months (the 4 pages of her blog’s archives that I can be bothered to load).
The topic I speak of is, of course, the “looming menace” of activist judges. (Mind you, if I go and count references to the other topic of her piece this week, same-sex “marriage”, I might be here all month.) You know, those, horrible, nasty elitist fiends who wipe out historical myths that may disadvantage an entire race, prevent an indigent accused unable to access legal aid from being denied a fair trial, allow ministers to exercise powers granted by parliament and commit other such atrocies against the community which amount to an “open declaration of war against our elected politicians“.
In a dazzling display of conservative intellect and wisdom, yesterday’s headline boldly declares war on those smarmy, unelected gits: “Judges should butt out of politics“.
That’s right, Ladies and Gentlemen of the Bench — Butt. Out. Y’all may have spent years studying in law schools, working in top firms and advocating at The Bar in order to be appointed as judges and work your booties off dealing with people’s problems and issuing punishments to criminals, but you and your bonehead friends can’t tell me what to do! Nuh-uh!!! I’m telling Mummy on you! … IknowyouarebutwhatamI? … Whoeversmeltitdealtit! … Liarliar! Pantsonfire!! … Mummmmmyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You know what? I may be biased. I went to law school and learned about this whole law and politics thing and now I work for two judges, so I might just be hero-worshipping and sticking up for them.
But as Aunty Jan warns of the apocalyptic doom we now face because Californian Judges have decided (4:3) that it’s ok for two grown adults who just so happen to be of the same gender to commit to each other for life, she appears to have forgotten that the California Supreme Court hasn’t at all usurped the state congress’ role in deciding whether or not to extend the full entitlements of marriage to same-sex couples. The Californian Senate and Assembly legislated for the validity of same-sex marriages, without court pressure, in 2005 and 2007. The (duly elected) Govnernator vetoed the bills because he believed that same-sex marriage should be settled by the courts as the constitutionality of the 2000 “Proposition 22” referendum, in which 60% voted for a “man & woman” definition of marriage, was yet to be considered and validated.
Or maybe she didn’t know that? Come on, Aunty Jan, it really ain’t too hard to use Wikipedia. You have a doctorate in laws, don’t you? Did they give you a lobotomy and remove the section of your brain in which you stored the concept of doing “research” when you accepted the job at Teh Oz, or something?
To all my law friends, and my other friends, who are also smart and worldly (because, hello, you’re friends with me!), do you have any thoughts? Will the world now end or should we try to get Sarah Connor to crush those evil judges in hydraulic pumpy things?
I leave you with the wise words of His Honour, the irrefutably awesome, Justice Micheal Kirby, who has his own Facebook appreciation society and gets extra marks for having enticited a personal vendatta from Aunty Janet:
So long as law is something more than mere rules, so long as it speaks of deep values and human aspirations, of human dignity and fundamental rights, there will be people called judges who have the responsibility to express and apply the law and, in new circumstances, to push it forward and adapt it in a principled way. So long as judges do this, there will be critics. And sometimes the criticism will be fair and require correction. But let us resolve that the criticism will be voiced in civil language. We can leave out the bullying. Childish demonisation and name-calling should be left to infants’ schools. They are contemptible and anti-intellectual. We should resolve to replace swearwords with analysis and bullying with open-minded dialogue. [link]