A post in which I try to start a blog-war with some idiot at Bearing Drift over the gay marriage ruling.

Over at Bearing Drift, a Steven Osborne has a post about what — in his deluded mind — the gay marriage ruling (by Judge Vaughn R. Walker in Perry v. Schwarzenegger) means.

Frankly, I’m not sure why I’m bothering to post about a blog post that is just awful. I guess it’s partly because it’s so full of it, it’s amazing. Here’s the one of the most outlandish things stated in the post:

The Walker decision has, for the first time in American history, established that marriage is a fundamental right rather than an institution.

Oh really, the first time ever you say? I’m curious did you even bother to read the opinion, Mr. Osborne? Apparently not, quoting from page 110 (PDF page 112) of the opinion:

The freedom to marry is recognized as a fundamental right protected by the Due Process Clause. See, for example, Turner v Safely, 482 US 78, 95 (1987) (“[T]he decision to marry is a fundamental right” and marriage is an “expression[ ] of emotional support and public commitment.”); Zablocki, 434 US at 384 (1978) (“The right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals.”); Cleveland Board of Education v LaFleur, 414 US 632, 639-40 (1974) (“This Court has long recognized that freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.”); Loving v Virginia, 388 US 1, 12 (1967) (The “freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.”); Griswold v Connecticut, 381 US 479, 486 (1965) (“Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred. It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects. Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions.”).

Now, for those not versed in legalese, the underlined words that have “v”s in them are the case names. You see? Very good. The things after are volume, reporter, and page citations. For example, 482 U.S. 78, 95, means that the beginning of case Turner v. Safely begins on page 78 of volume 482 of the United States Reports, and the quote is from page 95 of the same volume. (The numbers in the parentheses are the year the case was decided.)

Now, you may be asking, “What’s the United States Reports, Mr. Genius Blogger?” Why, kids, that would be the official reporter of the Supreme Court of the United States, meaning that every case cited in that paragraph is from the Supreme Court of the United States.

So, how exactly, is this case the first time that marriage has been “established” as “a fundamental right rather than an institution” when you have five SCOTUS decisions that state the exact opposite?

Geez, I have no idea who this idiot blogger is — other than he’s a student at Liberty University — but I hope to God he isn’t a pre-law student. *Shudder*.

Oh, and Chris Frashure reams him out in the comments section too. Give that a read, that first paragraph makes it one of the best comments I’ve read in a long time.

Leave a Reply


Warning: Unknown: open(/home/content/36/5675336/tmp/sess_vqb350jgs7725kf89l619in307, O_RDWR) failed: No such file or directory (2) in Unknown on line 0

Warning: Unknown: Failed to write session data (files). Please verify that the current setting of session.save_path is correct () in Unknown on line 0