<div><a href="http://www3.signonsandiego.com/stories/2009/jun/12/ca-gay-marriage-calif-061209/">http://www3.signonsandiego.com/stories/2009/jun/12/ca-gay-marriage-calif-061209/</a></div>
<div> </div>
<div>From website above:</div>
<div>
<p>But the attorney general, in a follow-up brief filed Friday evening said he supports the aims of the lawsuit. Brown said he agrees that Proposition 8 "imposed a special disability on gays and lesbians and their families on the basis of sexual orientation," violating the U.S. Constitution's promise of equal protection and due process. </p>
<p>"Taking from same-sex couples the right to civil marriage that they had previously possessed under California's Constitution cannot be squared with guarantees of the Fourteenth Amendment," Brown said. </p>
<p>-------------------------</p>
<p>My comment:</p></div>
<div>The guarantee of constitutionally protected rights does not hinge critically on whether the person or persons exercising one of these rights is thereby acting to the betterment of society, as far as my understanding of the law goes. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Someone standing in Friendship Square with a sign "Vote the Bigot Party" regarding the last Moscow City Council election, was exercising a constitutionally protected right of speech, but there was no betterment to society in this action, in my opinion. The Aryan Nations have a constitutionally protected civil right to march down Main St. wearing swastikas, but again I personally do not think this behavior of any benefit to society. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>If exercising a constitutionally protected behavior or legal arrangement demanded some sort of proof of betterment to society for civil rights to be enforced, many heterosexual couples, who are decidedly not a benefit to society, could have their marriage licence denied; and efforts to stop them from having children "out of wedlock" might be considered. Those who are poor and uneducated, who have numerous children, raised with poor nutrition, exposed to abuse, in an degraded intellectual environment, create numerous behavioral and economic problems for the whole of society, due to the behavior of the children from these unions.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>If it is true (and I am not saying it is) that homosexual couples who raise children (of course marriage does not have to be about raising children) on average create an inferior form of family life for child rearing, then a similar argument objecting to marriage applies to poor and uneducated heterosexual couples. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>The law could be amended to deny marriage licences to those of limited economic and educational resources, regardless of sexual orientation. Marriage licences should only be granted to those who can demonstrate economic and educational competence for child rearing; and many gay couples would be more qualified than many heterosexual couples.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Why is this goal not pursued aggressively by those opposed to gay marriage? Because the opposition to gay marriage is not fundamentally about protecting or ensuring quality families for children to be raised in. It is fundamentally about prejudice and bigotry towards those who engage in a form of behavior that is considered morally, religiously or in some other manner objectionable, regardless of the actual facts of the harm or not to society from this behavior.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Ted Moffett<br></div>