The judge that ruled against California’s Proposition 8 did not “overturn the will of 7 million people,” as so many seem fond of saying. The Court’s role in our Republic has nothing to do with “Will of the people.”
The Court’s role is to interpret how the laws of our nation or our states impact a particular case. The Court needs to do this without regard to the will of the people because the Constitution was designed so that the law would override the will of the people. This is to protect the rights of We the People. That is the beauty of our system.
Sadly, this point is often ignored or confused. Most recently, members of Congress and the President have looked for judges that are “in touch” with Americans. The New York Times has on several occasions complained that court rulings are “out of touch” with our society.
People making such statements are ignorant. The Courts are supposed to be out of touch. When We the People want “In touch,” we should look to the House of Representatives and to the President. Not the Courts.
{ 2 comments }
Concernedly the courts have been preoccupied with equal protection. However, the ballot measure in CA that affected only CA, on an issue reserved to the states, much like regional differentiation on the 2nd Amendment, forgot the primary exercise of the will of the people, ‘due process.’ Of which these same affected peoples were equally procedurally involved. Marriage is not a constitutional issue, nor the domain of the federal government. With this ruling, what’s the argument against bestiality, or marrying your goat?
Life in a democracy, two wolves and a sheep voting on what’s for dinner.
Since there is no god in the courts let’s found our arguments in science. I’m sorry, but homosexuality is an evolutionary dead-end. However, there is no reason to confer upon them rights or guarantees not enumerated within the Constitution, so regulated by the various States, or reserved to the People.
The judge heard these arguments and found them lacking–with the exception of the bestiality one, which doesn’t even make sense (Animals aren’t people, that’s easily enough solved.) The process is going in the same direction as civil rights cases , and the arguments all basically are the same. Here’s a new one (or at least I haven’t heard it.) Gay marriage protects straight marriage. How? If Gay people who can’t accept their sexual orientation marry straight people, their marriages are likely to be loveless, if not doomed. Make those marriages less likely so straight people are free only to marry each other.