To the Editor:
I concur with your assessment of Judge Vaughn R. Walker’s ruling against Proposition 8 (“In Defense of Marriage,” editorial, Aug. 13), and of his subsequent commentary about whether its proponents had standing to appeal the decision.
He may be right, but his reasoning was alarming. Judge Walker suggested
that the organization supporting the measure was not adversely affected
by the ruling.
He misses the point: Proposition 8, however virulent its cause, came into effect by virtue of a statewide referendum.
That makes California voters the affected party. If ProtectMarriage.com
was allowed to appear in court to defend Proposition 8, in the wake of
the state government’s refusal to do so, surely it can move to challenge
the decision.
I believe there should be no restrictions whatsoever on the right to
marry, and fervently hope the appellate court will uphold Judge Walker’s
ruling. But the appeal should be heard.
Bernard Schmidling
Scotia, N.Y., Aug. 14, 2010
Note from KBJ: You have to wonder about the intelligence of this man. If two men or two women are allowed to marry, what is to prevent three or more people from marrying? What is to prevent an entire commune or community from marrying? What is to prevent adults from marrying children, or their animal companions, or their automobiles, or their own children, siblings, or parents, or, God forbid, themselves? What is to prevent children from marrying children? What is to prevent people from marrying the dead? Yes, I'm making a logical slippery-slope argument. What is the letter writer's principle? Is the letter writer serious that there should be "no restrictions whatsoever on the right to marry"? Has he thought this through?
Keith Burgess-Jackson, J.D., Ph.D. 