We the People of the United States, in Order

to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice,

insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the
common defence, promote the general Welfare,
and secure the Blessings of Liberty
CONSTITUTIONAL THINKING
BEHIND WEDNESDAY’S DECISION to ourselves
ON “PROP 8”
and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this
The Opinion of Chief Justice Philip Wiseman

Constitution for the United States of America.

Of The High Court of His Own Opinion

We the People of the United States, in Order

to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice,
insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the
common defence, promote the general Welfare,
and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves
and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this
Constitution for the United States of America.
We the People of the United States, in Order
to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice,
Page 1 of 4

insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the

 CONSTITUTIONAL THINKING BEHIND
WEDNESDAY’S DECISION ON “PROP 8”
DISCLAIMER: As I am NOT a legal expert, this is NOT in any way a “professional” opinion
from an “expert”. Also, I am well aware of other expressed arguments used in this decision (as
can be found http://www.scribd.com/doc/35374462/Prop-8-Ruling-FINAL). This is ONLY
something I believe many will miss when they read the document and/or hear arguments made in
the news, gossip shows, or on Comedy Central1.

I. DEFINING “CIVIL INSTITUTIONS” FROM “RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS”

For all those that wish to argue “constitutionality” of California’s constitutional amendment set
for in Proposition 8 (“Prop 8”) I hope to shed some legal light on the issue to make things clear
for all of you. The decision today has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the religious
institution of marriage. The reasoning behind this is as follows:
1) Religious practices fall only under the authority of religious creed and doctrine as far as
they do not inhibit the rights of others or the physical security of the state (aka. Why
Muslim women can’t wear anything over their faces when they take driver’s license
photos – see the case in Florida over that at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niqāb#cite_note-
ref41-44)
2) When practices are conditioned, licensed, regulated, or otherwise legislated by civil
government they CANNOT be done so by religious creed2.
3) Because “marriage” is licensed and regulated by The State of California (and indeed all
states in the United States), this institution became a civil institution subject to the laws of
California and the United States.

It’s a very simple thing to examine in regards to law, licenses, and restrictions in the United
States. While there still exists an institution of “marriage” in religion it IS NOT the same
institution found in civil law.

Today’s ruling ONLY affects the CIVIL INSITUTION OF MARRIAGE, not the religious ones
which differ by creed and doctrine.

A parallel of this would be the example of the civil definition of the word “citizen” compared to
the religious definition of “citizen”.

In the practice of Christianity3, each of God’s children is a “citizen” of his Kingdom, his church,
and his body. HOWEVER, in the United States each “citizen” is ONLY a member of The United

1
Mainly the Colbert Report and The Daily Show.
2
Except in civil bodies which are mandated and founded upon the literal documentation and principles of a religious
creed or doctrine (aka. Theocracies).

2
States of America.4 Again, let us apply the logic of the argument on civil vs. religious institutions
of marriage with the example of “citizen”:

1) In religion, a “citizen” (also referred to as “a child of God”) is recognized only by that

particular doctrine or creed and is therefore only subject to the laws, regulations, and
“licenses “of that doctrine or creed.
2) When the institution of “citizenship” applies to a person who is a citizen of The United
States (a political institution) 5they are recognized only by its laws and subject to is
regulations and licenses.
3) Because citizenship is regulated by The United States of America and its laws, citizens of
it must abide by those laws. Therefore, the institutions of “citizenship” in religion and in
civil law are DIFFERENT INSTITUTIONS.

II. WHY PROP 8 WAS UNCONSTITUTIONAL

The decision declaring “Prop 8” was NOT a “Radical leftist’s opinion of a law without
constitutional reasoning” as I have already heard it being called. It was a rational and logical
decision made in accordance with the legalities of The Constitution of The United States of
America in line with the “spirit of laws” in this country.
The institution of marriage has become an institution of “equals” as governed by the 14th
Amendment and other aspects of the Constitutional provisions for “liberty” as outlined in the
numerous court precedents listed in the actual ruling of Wednesday’s case. The laws of The
United States DO NOT recognize gender or gender-roles any longer.
Remember the phrase “Justice is blind”? Well as “justice” is the proper arbitration of “law”, if
“justice” is blind, than “law” must be as well. It is blind to race, blind to socioeconomic status,
AND blind to gender. Thus, if a civil institution is to be established and regulated IT MUST
ALSO BE “BLIND”.6
The right to marry is as right defined only as a “union of equals”. Because,
“Race restrictions on marital partners were once common in
most states but are now seen as archaic, shameful or even bizarre.” 7
and because the practice of “coverture” (aka. The man takes control of all assets and legal rights
and responsibilities of the wife) has ALSO been declared unconstitutional; minorities and
women are seen as equals with men. The only difference in characteristic that US civil law is

3
This is only an explanation based upon my experiences with Christianity and may not align with certain sects and
denominations of the religion. However, for the purposes of this brief, it is suffice to carry the line of reasoning.
4
Unless they have a legal exemption that allows them to be a “dual citizen” such as myself, in which that case they
are ONLY citizens of the US and another country. (Other exemptions apply which are not discussed).
5
States may also issue “citizenship” to individuals along similar lines as discussed about “citizenship” in The United
States of America.
6
In line with the definition of “blindness in justice” as stated above.
7
From the actual case ruling, p. 112, lines 4-5

3
able to take into account is the “age” of an individual, which did NOT come into question
through this trial.
THEREFORE, as far as the law is concerned, marriage is not between a man and woman,
between two Caucasians or any other race, but ONLY a “union among equals”.8 Therefore,
restrictions on the licensing of marriage which recognize gender are a violation of the principle
that “justice is blind” and therefore are unconstitutional via the 14 th Amendment (XIV as it is
seen in the case) and other US legal precedents declaring all citizens as “equals”.
III. CONCLUSION
As far as this trial and its subsequent rulings are concerned, the constitutionality of the California
Amendment has been determined to not exist in accordance with US laws, legal precedents, and
its constitution. Declaration of civil marriage DOES NOT CHANGE the religious institution.
Therefore, Muslims, Christians, and other beliefs are under NO OBLIGATION to recognize
these marriages as valid as in accordance with their own creeds and doctrines. HOWEVER, as
far as the civil legality of marriage goes, because of the legal obliteration of the discrimination
between men and women under the law, marriage CANNOT be restricted based on gender and
therefore the California regulation in respect to this IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
While some who oppose the law on religious or other moral grounds may attempt to dismiss
constitutionality by saying things like “Well judges only use The Constitution when it suits
them”, your arguments are invalid in their entirety. What we are discussing is this case at this
time and its constitutionality. What happens elsewhere is irrelevant and non-consequential to this
decision and if this is your only argument 9you clearly have NO ACTUAL EVIDENCE to
dispute this decision10.
Also, if you want a good laugh and can understand legal jargon as well as the nature of a court
trial, I would seriously recommend reading the final ruling on this case. The defense council
must not have had much preparation for this case, or must be almost entirely legally
incompetent. Seriously, when a judge asks why your argument matters, what kind of a lawyer
says “I don’t know, I don’t know.”?11

Delivered this 5th Day of August in the year 2010 by the honorable Chief Justice Philip Wiseman
as the majority opinion of this court.

8
Directly quoted from actual case.
9
Or for that matter if it is any argument you make to, as Sarah Palin would say, “refudiate” this ruling.
10
Just like defense council in the case.
11
This is sadly true and really did happen at the trial. And even more disheartening, is that it wasn’t the only time
that particular council did something stupid like that during these proceedings.