The California state supreme court today ruled in a 4-3 decision that there is a right in the California constitution for two people of the same sex to marry, the same as a man to a woman http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/state/20080515-1050-bn15samesex2.html.
Now, it does not matter how one feels about same sex marriage. The problem is that the court overstepped itself and disguised it as upholding a constitutional "right".
That is the problem. And worse, the California legislature did vote on the issue and in favor of recognizing same-sex marriage. And, in a real profile of courage Gov. Arnold vetoed the bill twice saying that it was an issue for the court to decide.
WRONG!
That is why we elect those to the legislature. They are the ones to write and vote on legislation. And, the California legislature did just that. It is what a conservative believes, even if it does not go the way we would want.
Gov. Arnold should have signed the legislation and if the court did find that the legislation truly violated the constitution of California, then the legislature could have made the necessary adjustments.
But, what the court did is violate the trust of the people with the elected legislature. It inserted itself in law, made itself the super legislature. That is what the minority came to in its dissent.
And, because California is not like Massachusetts, there will be a vote on this issue in November.
Because of the innitive process, right now a group called Protect Marriage http://protectmarriage.org has well over 1.5 million signatures to put a constitutional amendment on the ballot to define marriage as between one man and one woman. Period.
So, just in time for the presidential election, the culture war will be fought in the largest state in the United States.
And the California state supreme court will have to once again decide if the people and or elected legislators actually matter. It appears that the marker the court has layed down is, we do not.
2 comments:
You make all brillian points.
Am I missing something? Didn't the Court just say that a particular piece of legislation didn't pass Constitutional muster?
Post a Comment