Friday, May 16, 2008

The Activist Judges Ignore the People Again

The activist judges in California don’t care what their people think. In the manner typical of the left, the voice of the people was ignored (i.e. a matter passed by direct vote) in a 4-3 split decision by the State Supreme Court. The people of CA decided to ban homosexual marriage. The supreme court decided the people don’t matter. Activist judges are incredibly annoying, they are the liberal way of circumnavigating the sea of popular opinion and ending up in the puddle of pseudo-intellectualism. I don’t care what your views on the issue of “gay marriage” are, The will of the people, not the will of 4 judges is what should be enforced. Every time a “landmark” court case like this occurs, I am incredibly saddened, because we all just gave up our voices. The Roberts court seems to have promise, but we have a long way to go for them to just be doing their job- interpreting, not writing laws.

11 comments:

The Great American said...

This is a daggone shame. I am against homosexuality and i feel this is wrong in a moral sense, but I think andybody, right or left, republican or democrat, straight or gay, should be up in arms because 4 people overturned the will of the people of California. Shame...

Jezabel said...

Agreed. Not to mention I don't think it's something that can be ruled upon by the courts to begin with... the ruling itself is unconstitutional - paving the way for more rulings like it...

Lindsay said...

They weren't debate whether CA should name same-sex unions marriages instead of domestic partnerships, but whether it was unconstitutional to call a union between a heterosexual couple marriage and a union between a homosexual a domestic partnership. If civil unions give all, or nearly all of the same legal benefits as marriage, is it unconstitutional to deny that right to certain people? Can we treat one person different from another based on sexual preference? The CA Supreme Court says it's not.

Anonymous said...

your verb tenses and grammer make your arguement difficult to understand, lindsay...

Lindsay said...

Let me restate what I was trying to say.

The CA Supreme Court didn't rule on whether they thought gay people should be able to get married. They ruled on whether it was unconstitutional (based on the CA constitution) to deny gay people the right to get married.

If civil unions and marriages offer basically the same legal and economic benefits, is it constitutional to say one group can only have civil unions?

It reminds me a bit of Plessy v. Ferguson and the revising Brown v. Board of Education. Plessy v. Ferguson ruled that separate but equal was legal while Brown overturned that.

Even if the majority of the people are against gay marriage, the judges didn't consider that while ruling on the case. They only thought about whether sexual orientation was something that should be fall under the equal protection clause.

The CA Supreme Court wrote this: we now conclude that sexual orientation should be viewed as a suspect classification for purposes of the California Constitution’s equal protection clause and that statutes that treat persons differently because of their sexual orientation should be subjected to strict scrutiny under this constitutional provision.

Because sexual orientation does fall under the equal protection clause, laws denying something based on sexual orientation are unconstitutional, thus, marriage cannot be restricted based on sexual orientation.

I hope that was clearer "grammer."

The Great American said...

Things like race and gender and handicaps should most definitely be protected under equal protection. However, homosexuality should not be protected because that is a choice. So we should be made to accomodate people because they choose to live a certain way, thus changing the law to accomodate their choice. Thats wrong.

Jezabel said...

We don't change the law to accomodate those who choose to become serial killers. Or those who choose animals over people. Or anything else.

Even if the majority of the people are against gay marriage, the judges didn't consider that while ruling on the case.
That is the problem! They didn't consider the will of the people. That is the argument here. The decision was based on the feelings of seven men, who do not represent the people properly - if they make decisions against the will of the people.

(The Korean) Andrew said...

why would anyone choose to be gay when it means they will have to suffer a life of social isolation and humiliation by conservatives? Even if you want to think that being gay is a sin, it is also a sin to judge others, as that is the domain of your God.

matteo said...

i'll begin by first mentioning that the composition of the california supreme court is almost entirely republican (there is only one democrat on the court) and the court as a whole is considered moderately conservative. so you're declamation of the court as being leftist is entirely inaccurate.

now, as to your ignorance of california jurisprudence, and the functioning of a constitutional republic: all california statutes, be they enacted by the legislature or through the initiative process, must conform to the california constitution. no matter how large the majority in a vote, if an act is unconstitutional, it cannot stand.

the law in california clearly supports that marriage is a fundamental right of all of its citizens and this right is protected by several clauses of the california constitution. the equal protection clause of the california constitution--which is much more robust than that of the federal constitution--also clearly holds that the state must afford all of its citizens the same rights, privileges, and obligations equally. the supreme court found that the state was unequally providing access to a fundamental right by denying a suspect class the right of marriage. under strict scrutiny, the government could not show a compelling legislative reason that was necessary to further a governmental goal, so the classification was deemed unconstitutional.

california already granted all the legal rights and privileges under state law (well, all but a handful of minor ones) to domestic partners, so this truly was an equal protection claim, and like many previous cases, separate is not equal. and it is already public policy (the legislature, executive, and judiciary all have clearly demonstrated this) that discrimination based on sexual orientation is abhorrent in california.

and about the whole choice thing....it's not a choice, no more than heterosexuality is a choice. and that has little bearing on the fact that regardless, sexuality is a core fact of identity and does not impair a person to be a full and productive member of society. to force someone to change it even if they could in order to escape state sanctioned discrimination is repugnant to a free state. that is the same reason why religion--which is highly changeable--is also afforded protection. those who assume that sexual orientation is chosen are ignorant. those who characterize one orientation as akin to murder, are just plain stupid.

The Great American said...

"no matter how large the majority in a vote, if an act is unconstitutional, it cannot stand."

Before referendums, amendments or what have you are placed on the ballot they have to be certified constitutional. So it was deemed constitutional prior to being put on the ballot for the people to decide. And they decided.

"it's not a choice'

So basically, what you're saying is that homosexuals are forced into same-sex relationships? I believe who you want to have a relationship with in it's own is a choice. However, there is only one sexuality based lifestyle choice that is moral and pleasing to God. And that lifestyle is heterosexuality. Now, you may not believe God, I don't know. But I try my best to live up to Gods standards, and in God's eyes homosexuality is a sin. People may be born with an imbalance that would perhaps mislead them towards homosexuality, but the choice to live that way is wrong and a sin. Much the same way that someone might be born with an imbalance that would lead someone to kill, and if they acted on that it would be wrong and a sin. And fyi, if you steal a candy bar, commit a terrorist act, or engage in homosexual behavior, each and every sin is equal in God's eyes. And I'm a sinner too, everyone is.

Goose said...

Matteo, show me where you found the word leftist. I used the word Activist, I claimed it was a method most often used by liberals, but nobody used the word leftist.

Also, my point was that the will of the people was subverted by the will of 4 men. Nothing more, nothing less.