Seeing red in the judiciary

[kellinator]

This isn't my usual subject material, because there are so many of you who do it so much better than I ever could, and anyway I'm sure someone out there will flame me for this, but I have to mock post this anyway.

From Layland v. Ontario, 1993:

"The law does not prohibit marriage by homosexuals provided it takes place between persons of the opposite sex. Some homosexuals do marry. The fact that many homosexuals do not choose to marry, because they do not want unions with persons of the opposite sex, is the result of their own preferences, not a requirement of the law.... In my opinion, the common law limitation of marriage to persons of opposite sex does not constitute discrimination against the applicants [a gay couple wishing to marry] contrary to s. 15 of the Charter."

I generally don't believe in violence, but I would like to smack the person who wrote this for being an asshole and an idiot.

Now I'm so mad I'm going to go through line by line...

The law does not prohibit marriage by homosexuals provided it takes place between persons of the opposite sex.

Talk about missing the forest for the trees, asshole.

Some homosexuals do marry.

Yeah, they force themselves into marriages to straight people because society makes it so hard on them, and it almost always ends in disaster. It's obvious that you're too much of a raging hemorrhoid to recognize that one of your own children could be gay, so let me put it in terms your tiny little pea brain might understand: What if your child married someone who turned out to be gay, resulting in pain to the entire family when things didn't work out, which they hardly ever do in this case? Oh, that's right, you're a dicksmack, you'd blame the spouse for marrying your poor straight baby, ignoring that you're the one that's saying the law says it's okay for people to do that, but somehow illegal for gay people to get married. Your logic is not like our Earth logic.

The fact that many homosexuals do not choose to marry, because they do not want unions with persons of the opposite sex, is the result of their own preferences, not a requirement of the law.

Talk about blame-the-victim logic.

In my opinion, the common law limitation of marriage to persons of opposite sex does not constitute discrimination against the applicants contrary to s. 15 of the Charter.

Blow me. I pity the people of Ontario having a fucking moron like you on the bench.

Comments

[deza.livejournal.com]

So, all you have to do is have a gay couple and a lesbian couple and have all four of them be able to get along and not mind living in the same house...

To quote Bugs Bunny, "What a maroon."

[alphafem.livejournal.com]

I'm wondering if this is the same numbnuts judge who ruled a perp not guilty in the molestation of a three year old, because when he took her testimony in chambers he found she acted 'provocatively'.
This was ALSO the same moron who when passing judgement in a rape case said something like, "The victim was a clean cut college girl, not your typical drunken Indian passed out in a snowbank..."
Yeah, he's a charmer alright...

[dwivian]

The judge has to work within the context of the law -- when they don't, they run the risk of creating law, and that's never a good thing. Equal protection for the concept of 'marriage', as the state defines it, means even gay people can marry opposite genders.

The problem is with 'marriage' as an institution and definition, and not with rights. You wanna fix that, you've gotta change the rules of the game. Judges can't do that.

I think his ruling was just snarky enough to force legislative action, personally. That's a pretty good trick.

Re:

[kellinator.livejournal.com]

I think his ruling was just snarky enough to force legislative action, personally. That's a pretty good trick.

I hope you're right. And in the event that you are, I hereby rescind all my colorful insults.

[blueingenue.livejournal.com]

I've gotten into it this post and this post in conservatism.

In particular, look at what I said in this thread.

Re:

[dwivian]

And, if I'm not, I'll join you in a few more...

Like....

Blödes arschloch
Affenschwanz
Arschficker
Puffmutter
Blode Fotze
and...
Strichmädchen

[caffron.livejournal.com]

In more places than you might care to mention, there are oddities with respect to rape. In some places, a man cannot be judged to have raped his wife even if he injured her by knife-point while forcefully having sex. In some states, an adult cannot be convicted of statutory rape if the minor was of the same sex. In others, only older men can be convicted, not women. Society can't get over sexual hang-ups, and screwed up laws are just a result of that.

Re:

[kellinator.livejournal.com]

Oooh. I like. Very impressive.

Re:

[sujata.livejournal.com]

Um, judges can and do make law, and have been doing so for nigh unto a thousand years now. "Common law" is judge-made law.

Judges actually have a responsibility to strike down unconstitutional and/or outdated laws, as well, whether the source of that law is case precedents (common law), statutes, or administrative regulations. That's what the U.S. Supreme Court did when it overturned Bowers v. Hardwick, last summer.

Of course, it's possible that you're correct -- that he was being deliberately provocative, in the hope that the legislature would change the law. Many judges are uncomfortable with creating law, as opposed to merely interpreting it. But most judges who see the need for changes in law write remarks to that effect in their opinions -- dropping a huge hint to the legislature, in effect. Those judges are usually prepared to change the law themselves, when a case that enables them to do so comes along, if the legislature doesn't take the hint.

Snarking a legislature into action would be a very dicey strategy. It's much more effective to drop hints to the legislature in opinions, or if need be simply disregard precedent and make new law on the judge's own initiative. :-)

[sujata.livejournal.com]

Thanks. I needed a deserving moron upon whom to vent some frustration, today. :-D

By the way, what's a nice girl like you doing hanging out in such a community? Surely you must spend most of your time vegetating, for lack of an intellectual and educational equal!

Re:

[blueingenue.livejournal.com]

I feel some snarky_haiku coming on:

Now I whet my blade
Only on the coarse flat stone
No true battles, there

When I want to learn
the logical fallacies
they give examples

[sujata.livejournal.com]

Poor benighted soul, he just doesn't know when to stop. So I let him have it with both barrels, just now. *giggle*

But I suppose I'd better let him rest in pieces, now, since engaging the likes of him in a battle of wits is hardly sporting of me. He is, after all, unarmed.

Re:

[dwivian]

Sorry to take so long getting back to this...

The fact that judges occasionally create law doesn't invalidate my claim that it isn't a good thing. In fact, common law cases are so messy that many states are revoking common law status for certain torts and contracts. In Georgia alone, we've done away with common law marriage, administrative policy (outside the courtroom, where the judge still prevails), and contract structure.

And, as the SCOTUS once found out, making their own laws in no way requires the executive to enforce them. Just ask the Cherokee on that one.