« Continue Browsing

e-mail article Print     e-mail article E-mail

Brent Jaenicke, Published August 30 2010

Prop. 8 column flies off the rails

I am writing after reading Lloyd Omdahl’s Aug. 16 column concerning Judge Vaughn Walker’s decision that overturned California’s Proposition 8.

The first three-quarters of the column are completely spot-on when he reminds us that we are governed by a secular state. His explanation that fundamental rights granted by our Constitution cannot be put to a vote is accurate. And, of course, these rights are not absolute because we abridge them consistently with laws and court rulings limiting their applications due to compelling state interests.

Where I feel he flies off the rails is his assertion that Walker used “unfounded suppositions and conclusions without recognizing any compelling state purpose for protecting the benefits of traditional marriage.” What unfounded suppositions is he referring to? Which conclusions were drawn that ignore a compelling state interest? Did he read the entire ruling?

The witnesses for the argument to keep Prop. 8 admitted that no tangible harm occurs to heterosexual married couples when homosexual couples are allowed to wed. There was no evidence presented that proved heterosexual marriages would suffer harm if homosexual couples were allowed to wed besides, quote, “I read it on the Internet.”

What are his “unfounded suppositions?” What “conclusions” fail to recognize a compelling state interest? Why should the law treat hetero and homosexual relationships differently?

Not a single shred of evidence exists that proves the institution of marriage will suffer if gays and lesbians are allowed to wed.