![[Nameplate]](http://www.gcdailyworld.com/images/nameplate.png)
|
|
~ High: 83°F ~ Low: 58°F Wednesday, May 23, 2012 |
|
Judge Walker, meet the PeoplePosted Sunday, August 22, 2010, at 7:00 PM
When I heard that Proposition Eight (aka Prop 8) in California had been overturned, I was shocked. Not because gay marriage became legal in California, but because the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California ruled in opposition of the will of the people.
"Prop 8" was put on the ballot in the 2008 Presidential Election in California (and I think a few other states, but this is about California so I am staying there), and a majority of voting Californians approved the gay marriage ban (roughly by a 52 -- 48 margin) (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2010/08/prop8-gay-marriage.html). I find this kind of ruling to be atrocious to our democracy. When Courts rule against the will of the people, the interests of any democratic society are severely at stake. Political Scientist Gerald Rosenberg would agree with me. He suggests in his book The Hallowed Hope that Courts should not be the catalyst of social change, but rather reflect the mood of the people. The best example of this is Roe v. Wade in 1973. In Roe the Supreme Court legalized what was already a social norm. Legal abortions took place two years before Roe but it was a state issue. It received support from religious groups like the American Jewish Congress, American Baptist Convention, and the YWCA. What is more is that states like New York, Alaska, Hawaii, and Washington had repealed their state laws on abortion (Rosenberg, pp 2 -- 184) (http://www.stateline.org/live/ViewPage.action?siteNodeId=136&contentId=121780). With such support, Roe did not invent social change; it merely allowed its continuance. While I do not completely agree with Dr. Rosenberg, I find the account of the people that are taken via referendum ought to be upheld on the basis of its constitutionality. The problem I have on Prop 8's overturn is not the issue itself, but the way the District Court told 52% of the voters what they did was unconstitutional. Chief Judge Vaughn Walker, what exactly was unconstitutional about the referendum? Are referendums not allowed in California? If that is the case, the Terminator should not have been in office! No, I get it; you made your ruling on the issue, not the procedure. I guess majorities do not rule on social issues, just what the Court thinks the majority wants. Argh... If a case went to the Supreme Court concerning gay marriage today, the Justices would decide on the merits of their interpretation of the Constitution. I would hope they would consider the 44 states that already have either legislation and/or a constitutional ban on gay marriage before they make their ruling (http://www.stateline.org/live/details/story?contentId=347390). That is if the Roberts Court wish to reflect the Burger Court's social agenda. Look, gay marriage is a tough issue, and it causes a lot of emotion on both sides of the coin. This entry is not about gay marriage itself, but rather how disappointed I was when California's Northern District Court told a majority of its voters their action was unconstitutional. It is like Bush v Gore all over again. Till Next Time. Comments Showing most recent comments first [Show in chronological order instead] |
Hot topics The Grand Finale(8 ~ 11:53 AM, Aug 11)
For The Dads
The Once and Future Subject
Personal Story
Mom's Day
|
Email link
Read comments (16)
Blog archive
![[Feed icon]](http://www.gcdailyworld.com/images/icons/feed-icon-14x14.png){kind=icon}
PecosBill, you are free to instill whatever values you choose into your children. The passing of civil rights legislation for women and minorities did not end chauvanism or bigotry, just like allowing gays to marry will not end homophobia
I really am having a hard time believing this is your position, Drew. One of the many reasons our Constitution is so brilliant is that it protects the minority. That idea is built into congress with smaller states receiving an equal amount of representation in the senate and certainly into our judicial system. Yet you find it "atrocious to our democracy." Its one of the bedrock principles of our government.
One of the problems with the entire situation again, began with money. If most remember; the Mormon Church out of Utah invested over 20 million dollars campaigning in California on this issue. I do not think out of state money should be allowed on a state issue. Money skews everything, if it was just the people of Ca. making the decision great , but when money came from every Religious group in the U.S. it is no longer just a state issue. Without all of the money and the Religious groups who knows how the vote would have come out. And by the way my whole family is Mormon.
Well put onetime, your knowledge of the system is beyond mine.
Should this issue go to the Supreme Court, then the argument will be State's Rights vs. Civil Rights.
The Supreme Court will have to rule if same sex marriage is a civil right, thus nullifying the California referendum, or it is not a civil right, meaning that California can set it's own definition and regulation, i.e., supporting the referendum.
With the idealogical balance of the court the way it is right now, it could go either way.
1) California already has a domestic partner law so the claim that prop 8 somehow keeps homosexuals from enjoying the same rights heterosexuals do is largely false.
2) Let's look to Europe: In Sweeden, Belgium, England, Spain and Ireland minsters have been either jailed or threatened with jail for offering their biblical interpretation to their congregations.* To people truely interested in preserving individual liberties this should be much more chilling.
3) Although it doesen't have its own amendment, the right of parents to raise their children with their values is certainly very important. This right gets trashed with the institution of homosexual marriage (just look at Masschusetts).
* http://www.thevoicemagazine.com/headline...
Wow.
Drew, I rarely think much of your positions, but your thoughts as expressed in this blog are the farthest away from mine yet. You clearly do not have a good understanding of the federal government's separation of powers and the purposes of the federal court system regarding civil rights issues. It seems from this blog that you expect it to act as a kangaroo court at best if it is to rule on issues voted on by referendum.
What if Greene County, which is historically right-leaning, were to vote in a referendum that you were not allowed to express your left-leaning thoughts, and in fact you could be put in jail for writing or speaking anything that say cow rancher didn't agree with. Wouldn't you want someone to protect your rights even if you were living in an area that didn't agree with some of your views???
Laker34:
Federal Judges are appointed, not elected. They aren't subject to the direct vote of the people so they can make unpopular decisions such as this one. President Reagan first appointed Judge Walker, but he was finally put on the bench by Geroge H.W. Bush.
Well somebody has to come to drew's rescue here so I'll give it a try. He makes a good point. The people voted one way, and their elected officials decided a different way. Who cares what the subject is...it's scary knowing that we have no control over the decisions made. Or do we? Perhaps the people of California will think harder the next time around before entering the voting booth when it comes to electing someone to represent them.
The SCOTUS issue at hand was not who won the State of Florida and thus the White House; it was whether or not the laws of the state of Florida concerning recounts were constitutional and followed correctly.
They ruled against Gore's case, i.e., the SCOTUS adjudicated that Florida's process was followed according to their laws and that their laws concerning the selection of Presidential electors and the right of every state to have a representative government were constitutional.
Thus, the recount was stopped. By a vote of 5-4 along idealogical lines, the SCOTUS said that the recount was an extra-legal activity as it was being conducted, and that the Florida Commissioner of Elections had acted within the law, and the constitution, by stopping it.
Supporting the SCOTUS decision were the "fly-by-night" rules that the recount was being run by. Everyone remembers those guys ruining their eyesight by squinting at the hanging chads, right?
That was the issue decided in Gore vs. Bush. Later, via the Freedom of Information act, the Orlando Sentinel and Miami Herald got all the ballots in question and did their own recount. Their recount took months, and gave the win to Bush. Seeing that both papers are left-leaning, it is probably a very good indicator of what would have happened if the official recount were done.
Another issue was the very poor design of the ballot itself in certain precints, where people were not sure if they were voting for Gore or Pat Buchannon. This ballot was actually designed by the Democratic election commissioner of that area, who was subsequently forced to resign by her own party leaders.
Refreshing to see well thought out posts based on the issue itself instead of name calling and posturing. Of course, it is still early ...
That said, my only comment is that the Iowa Supreme Court has ruled that gay marriage is a civil right. So, the US District Court for Northern California has a precedent to rule on.
Now, this issue is set for a Supreme Court battle, which should get interesting.
I just wanted to note I'm sorry for getting heated up as this is a touchy subject for me [loool, noooo, really?] but yeah.. I think you got this one wrong.
CIVIL RIGHTS SHOULD NOT BE PUT UP TO A VOTE.
That is the entire point, Drew, and you are missing it. Putting someone's personal rights up to a vote is unconstitutional and should never have been voted on to begin with. You call yourself a liberal and write this garbage? Proposition 8 violates the equal protection clause. It makes me really sad that one of the few progressive people from our town thinks like this. Care about the rights of a vote that should never happened more than the rights of your fellow human beings.
There was a time interracial marriage was illegal too. Would you be fine with that up for a vote? Or your own marriage? Or the rights for minorities to vote? Rights are not to be up to a vote by the people. It's wrong. THAT is unconstitutional. I think you need to go back and study your history and the constitution again.
I hope everyone who reads Drew's blog will realize Drew is trying to avoid a discussion of gay marriage and not turn this blog entry into an argument over personal beliefs/values as they pertain to homosexuals or gay marriage. Please make sure you understand the topic before you post.
Having said that, I believe that, while a referendum is not illegal, the topic of the referendum can be.
To say it another way, holding the referendum was legal but the subject of the referendum (legality of gay marriage) is what is currently being debated.
A referendum is as close as we come to pure democracy (majority rule) in America. Our nation's founders were scared of majority rule. (The United States of America is a Republic, or Constitutional Republic, to be precise, not a Democracy.) That is why our Founding Fathers came up the Constitution. This document spells out individual rights and responsibilities and provides limits for government. Any law or referendum must be allowable, under our Constitution. As an extreme example and assuming you could convince enough people to go for it, we could hold a referendum to legalize murder but it would never be made law since murder is illegal under the Constitution.
The issue is whether same sex couples have the right, afforded by the Constitution, to get married. Even though referendums are legal, the topic of the referendum may not be Constitutional.
Just because a majority of people support/oppose something does NOT make that "something" right/wrong. Our Constitution is what makes things right or wrong and our judicial branch is there to decide in cases of a difference of opinion.
I believe the court viewed the result of the referendum (making same-sex marriage illegal) to be unconstitutional and I support that decision.
"Bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will, to be rightful, must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal laws must protect, and to violate would be oppression." --Thomas Jefferson: 1st Inaugural, 1801.
Thomas Jefferson was that guy who also wrote about the Separation of church and state. Insofar as the "will of the people" against gay marriage is directly reinforced by religious principles and beliefs, I'd say the judge was well within his rights to reverse it, based on the First Amendment alone. Just because everyone doesn't like it, that doesn't make it wrong. Case in point: interracial marriage, the integrations of schools, women's right to vote... History is full of oppression that the majority supported. Thank God we come from a country where that kind of oppression is not only outlawed- it can be fought.
It's just like what they say to Gay people, no one is keeping you from getting married, you can marry anywhere in the U.S. And on the flip side, if you don't want to marry someone of your own sex, don't. It's just like discrimination/reverse discrimination, the black people cry, women cry, and the white people cry about it. Heaven forbid you go to college and get a degree in anything except for whining all of the time about it (yes, there are lazy complaining white men too). As far as that Mosque in NYC goes, the moment America says "No" to it, every church in America has been put on Notice.