For Gay Marriage, But Also Proposition 8
So here’s the play by play.
– A judge decides that gays can get married in California based on the state’s constitution guaranteeing equal rights under the law.
– Gay rights activists cheer. The religious right boos. I cheer with the gay activists.
– The religious right brings forward Proposition 8, which would amend the state constitution so that gay marriage is banned.
– Big ad campaigns go into action for both sides.
– Proposition 8 passes, gay marriage goes away in California.
– Gay rights activists boo. The religious right cheers. I boo with the gay activists.
– A judge finds the amendment to the constitution to be unconstitutional…
– Gay rights activists cheer. The religious right boos. I boo with the religious right.
So what gives? I’m for gay marriage, I’ve been siding with the gay rights activists this whole time, why is this different? Very simple, judges are meant to interpret laws. Sometimes cases come up that weren’t anticipated and they have to fill in the rough edges. Sometimes judges go one step further and interpret the principle of a law. They are pretty much just making a law up at that point by saying, “Well if we have this law, then clearly that law is based on this idea, and that idea implies this other law.” That’s judicial activism and it should be a bad thing, but it’s done so regularly now that it can’t be helped or stopped.
This however, is something completely different. Here the courts creating a legal venue for gay marriage based on the state constitution (again judicial activism, but it happens), then the voters passed an amendment to the state constitution, and THEN the courts declared the new state constitution amendment unconstitutional based on… (drum role) the federal constitution. Even though the equal protection clause being referenced there has absolutely no application and (If upheld by the Supreme Court) would increase the federal government’s power to regulate all religious and social ceremonies. And what’s worse because the equal protection clause hasn’t ever been interpreted the way it was in this case, it could then would be selectively applied be the courts the nation over.
I don’t agree with the voters here, but they voted, and they amended the state constitution, and the state’s courts only has legal authority BECAUSE of the state constitution. If this is allowed to stand then it really is the last straw in our representative government because your vote means NOTHING. We could change every law on a constitutional level and still the courts could declare every law null and void on absolutely no basis. Pair that with the fact that the top of the judiciary are appointed (see unelected) and serve lifelong terms and welcome to oligarchy.
I’m sorry to my gay friends. I want you to have equality, I really do, but this is bigger than you now. So as odd as it may seem, I support gay marriage, but I also support upholding Proposition 8.
Here, this says it better than I did:
EDIT 2 –
The United States District Court for the Northern District of California is technically a federal court, so Judge Walker was within his jurisdiction to make an unconstitutional ruling based on the federal constitution. This changes things… I’ll have to give this some more thought…
Entry filed under: Evil.