Today, by a 4-3 vote, the California State Supreme Court ruled unconstitutional the California law that affirmed that marriage was an institution between a man and a woman. In doing so, they overturned a recent ballot decision by the voters of California to that effect-substituting their own beliefs for that of the California voters and throwing out an age-old concept that has lasted thousands of years all over the world.
According to the 4 justices who prevailed, limiting marriage to a man and a woman was a violation of the Equal Protection Clause because it discriminated against homosexual couples.
Personally, I could care less if homosexual couples want to love each other, live together and make contractual arrangements with each other. I do object when they and their judicial activist supporters on the bench choose to turn the age-old institution of marriage on its head. I do object when they replace the judgement of the voters with their own designs.
But this is California, after all. California courts are notoriously liberal. Ridiculously so, in fact.
I don't know what remedies are in order, but if the recall option is there, I say, there should be a recall movement to remove these judges from office. We have already removed an incompetent governor. Why not remove judges who have so abused their power?
What is that tired old leftist phrase, "Power to the people"?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
I agree.. This is the second time (Prop. 187) they have trashed the majority vote!! When judges impose their own political agenda without considering the will of the people from their vote then it is time they are removed. Sign me up for the recall...
Gary, do you think that the courts should never have the power to overturn the will of the people? Or is it that they shouldn't have that power when your will and the will of the people are the same?
The thing is, this country is also a country of laws, and some things are unconstitutional. I realize that you are okay with gay people having the same rights, but from what I understand, this current separate but equal system does NOT guarantee them the same rights.
Ultimately though, this law hurts absolutely nobody. Do you really want to spend the time and effort to overturn this? I don't put you in the same category as most of the anti-gay marriage crowd, but it seems to me that they must have a lot of hate in their hearts to go through the trouble of creating a constitutional amendment.
Oh, and I hate to get all English-teachery on you, but the phrase is "couldn't care less" not "could care less." After all, if you could care less, why don't you? Okay, sorry - no more grammar lessons. Just a pet peeve, and my apologies if it was nothing more than a typo.
OK, the English teacher has been corrected-duly noted.
I just think on this issue that the courts are creating a consitutional right that has never existed-in order to satisfy their own personal beliefs.
We have beaten this issue to death in the past, and I don't want to go over the same arguments. Suffice to say, this is more judicial activism and a reason why we need more conservative (judicial restraint) judges such as the 4 good ones we have on the Supreme Court.(Thomas, Alito, Roberts and Scalia)
Your point about the popular will is well taken. During the Third Reich, many German judges followed the popular will.
I just don't think this compares.
Well, that's the point of disagreement. While certainly not as egregious as what the Nazis did, it's still fairly offensive in my opinion - which is strengthened when I see couples who have been together for decades finally able to have their relationship legally recognized.
Just curious, but what do you think of the libertarian idea that the government shouldn't have anything to do with marriage at all - whether gay or straight? I think that there's something legitimate to that point of view.
Also, I was reading that California's laws for "partner" benefits are already pretty strong. Do you ever get the feeling that this argument is over semantics? (Not that words don't carry a powerful message though.)
I have no problem with partners making whatever contractual arrangements they want. Hell, you and I can do the same thing.
Yes, I think government unfortunately has an interest in being involved in marriages since there are so many legal and financial interests involved, and also to protect the interests of the children. There is no getting around that.
I don't understand why people are so concerned with gay people's rights, when they have all the civil rights anybody else has. What people should care about is women like me, who after decades of marriage divorce and are not able to get married again because they would lose all Social Security benefits accrued during the years they took care of children, husband and home. Now there is injustice, but who cares? It's more important to protect people who have funny sexual appetites.
I agree with you Ingrid. I certainly don't advocate treating gays like second-class citizens, but equal rights should be applied to things like race and religion, not anything based on behavior.
Post a Comment