Proposition 8...Justices' lunatic notions signal inability to reason legally or logically!

At a much-anticipated hearing on March 5th - where attorneys on both sides of the Proposition 8 issue presented oral arguments - Justices at the California Supreme Court appeared to signal their decision on the matter (according to a reactionary press and legal pundits) by virtue of thoughts bandied about aloud in the courtroom yesterday.

In my mind's eye, if what news agencies are predicting is true, then clearly the Justices have lost their faculty to reason logically or intelligently address legal issues.

For example, the Los Angeles times conjectured:

"The California Supreme Court strongly indicated it would rule that Proposition 8 validly abolished the right for gays to marry but would allow same-sex couples who wed before the November election to remain legally married."

If true, aren't the Justices aware of the sticky grey area they're about to venture into?

The idea on its face is so patently absurd that I personally question the sanity of these bench warmers from the get-go.

If the court upholds Prop 8 - and likewise - sanctions a handful of gay marriages as legal and binding because the individuals were betrothed before Prop 8 won at the polls - then they will find themselves in a worse dilemma.

Isn't it obvious?

A handful of "gays" will enjoy the right of a gay marriage - a union that will be recognized as legal and legitimate by the highest court in California - while a larger percentage of the gay population in the State will be barred from wedded bliss simply because they did the "right thing" and waited for all the legal challenges to be addressed.

In retrospect, two things are obvious from the get-go.

The gays who respectfully honored the legal process are going to be penalized for not dashing in and taking advantage of a tenuous situation when the opportunity was ripe.

In the wake of such a ruling, the equality issue complained of in respect to heterosexuals right to marry, will surely bust out with all its ugly ramifications in the gay community and possible split it apart.

I conjecture, bottom line, that if the court is inclined to rule as aforementioned, then an obvious legal issue will arise.

To sanction gay marriage among a handful of homosexuals, but bar the right to the majority, amounts to granting a special privilege to a select group in violation of the California Constitution.

In essence, there would be a glaring conflict in such a proposed ruling!

Notwithstanding, legal experts - and the press - may have jumped the gun!

I have been involved in oral arguments on an appeal matters where the Justices raised questions in open court that I thought signalled a ruling adverse to my legal position.

Imagine how jubilant I was when I received a copy of the order in the mail and discovered the Justices actually found in my favor.

You see, at oral arguments, Justices may pose questions to simply clarify the finer points of the law - or in the alternative - seek to resolve questions that may have been raised which weren't fully expounded upon in the brief.

In essence, on occasion, the Jurists are playing devil's advocate.

In the final analysis, we'll all just have to wait until the fat lady sings!

http://www.julianayrs.com