Thursday, August 15, 2013

California Abandons Rule of Law to Suit Gays

The case of Perry v. Brown (formerly Perry v. Schwarzenegger), about which I wrote at length here (and in further posts linked at this page), was a case of collusion to produce a desired outcome, namely, the disenfranchisement of the voters of California who passed Proposition 8 -- in favor of a tiny minority of gay-rights activists, and their left-wing supporters.

Nevertheless, it was just the decision of a single federal district court, in San Francisco. Since both California's elected governor and attorney general refused to appeal it, the Prop. 8 supporters hired attorneys to prosecute the appeal, only to have it thrown out by the U.S. Supreme Court because the supporters lacked federal standing. Dismissal of the appeal meant that Judge Walker's original decision and injunction -- directed only at certain named individuals, and protecting only two gay couples -- would become final. As I wrote in this post:
Such a decision would have no precedential value, except to the extent that other district judges -- if presented with the same question -- choose to follow it. There are four federal judicial districts in California -- Northern, Eastern, Central and Southern. Even though Judge Walker has enjoined the Governor, the Attorney General, the State Registrar of Vital Statistics, and the County Clerk-Registrars of Alameda and Los Angeles Counties from applying Proposition 8, he has no ability to extend his injunction to the county clerks of each of California's 56 other counties. (That is a consequence of the plaintiffs' bringing in as defendants only those County Clerks whom they knew would not oppose their case.) Moreover, as this commentator points out, Judge Walker did not certify a class of plaintiffs, so arguably his injunction would permit only the named plaintiffs to get marriage licenses. (Watch how quickly the San Francisco County Clerk ignores that limitation.) 
Proposition 8 is still the law in 56 counties of California, but neither the Governor, the Attorney General, nor the State Registrar will follow it or apply it; instead, they openly defy it. Governor Brown has issued a showcase "order" to all County clerks to issue same-sex marriage licenses, even though State law gives him no authority to do any such thing.

Yesterday the California Supreme Court dismissed -- without opinion -- two petitions for writs of mandate brought by the supporters of Prop. 8. They had asked the Court to order the Governor and the Attorney General to follow the law of this State, instead of subverting it. But the Court could not be bothered with such a non-issue these days as an elected official who disregards the law.

The officials, being all Democrats, are impervious to impeachment proceedings, because their party controls both houses of the Legislature.

And Governor "Moonbeam" Brown is a hopeless case, as is the State Legislature: just this week, the Governor signed into law a bill passed by the Legislature which prevents schools from enforcing gender restrictions for school bathrooms or for sports teams -- all to serve the whims of transgender students, who apparently change their minds from day to day about what "sex" they want to be.

It is a truism to point out that as California goes, so eventually goes the rest of the country. With the most lawless President ever at the helm, and the most spineless Congress in history, look for lawlessness to become the way by which all problems will in the future be solved.

But the people must want it that way, because they keep electing Governor Browns and California legislators back into office. And the people will get just what they deserve.


  1. I can't see this whole transgender thing in school doing anything but making CA's public schools more ungovernable than they already are. As more people abandon the school districts for homeschooling or private school, they're going to wonder why they're paying property taxes for schools that look like Visigoth encampments. That's one of those moments when people 'discover' they're conservatives.

    The whole transgender law is just going to put teachers and schools into an impossible predicament. Teachers have to make judgement calls, and the rules have to be simple and easy to follow. In general, it's not a good idea to have coed bathrooms or lockers or changing rooms, and this is going to be the last straw for public education unless some of the districts dig in their heals and say "no."

    Furthermore, the chickens of our latest so called "civil rights" obsession have really come home to roost: we really opened up a hornet's nest when we moved from issues of biology (sex, race) or handicap (wheelchair access, etc) to issues of how people choose to identify themselves (gay, lesbian, transgender, vegan, comic book fanatic, etc) depending on the mood of the minute. How is there any way any school district can conceivably accommodate all forms of newly state-protected identities? Either these CA districts will have to give up on the idea of public education all together (which might not be a bad idea) and let groups and families run schools, or the districts need to hire a litigation lawyer (got any recommendations?) and set up a defense fund and then tell Sacramento that it cannot comply with this law.

    Finally, I just want to say that my mom's family lives in California and it is tough for them. I have visited often, and it seems toughest on the middle class (another "as California goes..." comparison to our national picture). CA is a beautiful state with amazing resources, but the politicians seem to serve only the powerful and well-funded special interest groups. They don't seem too concerned about the tax long as they pay up and stuff.

    I haven't any data, did the 1986 amnesty play a major part in the change that California underwent post-1990 in state politics?

  2. Could you also say that California (and now, our country) operates a lot like the old Tammany Hall? Using patronage for votes, etc. Also, when you have a block of voters who don't have the values of citizenship that Americans have traditionally held, and when many of them are illiterate or cannot understand English well enough to find out what issues are at stake each election, then the political bosses can vote how their big donors want them to vote (which is what they'll always do if we don't keep them honest) and honest, well-informed citizens are powerless so long as we are not 51%.

  3. Is it just me, or are we back in the time of Judges where everyone gets to "do what is right in his own eyes?".

    This is not good at all. Reformed Reinhardt mentioned homeschooling, but I doubt the busies will let that happen much longer. Look for homeschooling to be banned in California ASAP.

    They cannot allow anyone to escape!

  4. Yes the people in California should be far more informed. But at the same time, unions have chokehold on the election process in California and manipulate voters with their tax funded advertising. If the unions were no more, far fewer democrats would be elected.