Ed Meese's Idea of "Justice" Is as Un-American as Prop H8
Stay up to date with the latest headlines via email.
Proponents of Proposition 8 -- the Cali ballot initiative that rescinded the state's pioneering marriage equality law -- say that the measure doesn't violate the separation between church and state because they're not motivated by any particular religious beliefs.
They claim the state has a secular and entirely rational interest in defending ...oh, I don't know, "the children," or "tradition" or something (it's never been entirely clear what it is, and that's a chief weakness in Prop 8 supporters' case).
They also say that they're not driven by homophobia, because if the law is deemed discriminatory -- which it clearly is -- then it won't pass constitutional muster.
This week, all eyes are on a federal district court in San Francisco, where a challenge to the initiative will be heard. And the judge presiding over the case, Vaughn Walker, thinks that it's fair to question those who pushed the law -- who designed it, got it on the ballot, gathered signatures and funded a major media campaign to promote it -- about whether they were in fact driven by either animosity towards gays and lesbians or religious idealism.
But Edwin Meese, former Attorney General under Reagan and scourge of low-level drug-users and sweaty masturbators everywhere -- writes in the New York Times that the deck is being "stacked" against proponents of the law:
But in this case, Judge Walker has ruled that things like TV advertisements, press releases and campaign workers’ statements are also relevant evidence of what the voters intended. The judge went so far as to order the Proposition 8 campaign to disclose private internal communications about messages that were considered for public use but never actually used. He has even ordered the campaign to turn over copies of all internal records and e-mail messages relating to campaign strategy.
It's only after several more paragraphs that Meese concedes that the supposedly über-liberal 9th Circuit of Appeals overturned that ruling, suggesting that to whatever degree it might have "stacked the deck" at trial is pretty irrelevant.