Cal Supremes Give Voters Digital Salute
Posted by: Doug Boyd | 05/15/2008 11:06 AM
Conservatives have long known that activist judges are one of the most serious threats to our society. They turn firm legal footing into quicksand, and leave no principles we can rely on as timeless and eternal.
The American Constitution was instituted as the foundation upon which all Americans can build and dream and grow. One aspect of its genius is the provision of a well considered procedure for change in itself. Full and careful consideration is required of each potential change, and a supermajority of votes in Congress and of states for ratification must be achieved before a change, known as an Amendment, is enshrined in the Constitution.
Conservatives honor and respect this God given document and its procedure for changing same. Liberals are so sure of their self-righteousness that they simply declare the Constitution changed to reflect their own personal beliefs - and the procedures and people they protect be damned.
Four rogue members of the California Supreme Court just flipped us all off today by announcing that they have decided the California Constitution requires that homosexuals be allowed to marry. California has been a state since 1850 and it took 158 years for this "right" to be discovered. Amazing isn't it?
The linguistic contortions they went through to justify this conclusion would make any circus ringmaster proud. They analogized this situation to a 1948 court decision striking down California's race based marraige restrictions. This analogy is flawed for several reasons, not the least of which is that the 1948 decision and all other civil rights decisions were made in accord with the Constitution and it's amendment procedures, not in spite of them. The 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments to the United States Constitution were the foundation for all these decisions. Most states did not fully implement these important rights until the second half of the 20th century, but the legal path was clear and the logic compelling.
Such is not the case here. Justice Marvin Baxter put it succinctly in his opinion dissenting from the holding. "Only one other American state recognizes the right the majority announces today. So far, Congress, and virtually every court to consider the issue, has rejected it. Nothing in our Constitution, express or implicit, compels the majority's startling conclusion that the age-old understanding of marraige - an understanding recently confirmed by an initiative law - is no longer valid. California statutes already recognize same-sex unions and grant them all the substantive legal rights this state can bestow. If there is to be a further sea change in the social and legal understanding of marraige itself, that evolution should occur by similar democratic means. The majority forecloses this ordinary process, and, in so doing, oversteps its authority."
The court majority goes on to recite all the recent statutes giving homosexual couples the rights of married couples. They then leap to the legal conclusion that all these laws justify their decision to change the Constitution. So if the Legislature passes a bunch of statutes, then the Constitution must be changed because of those statutes? Then the Legislature can itself amend the Constutution indirectly by passing statutes, even though it can't constitutionally do it directly? Poppycock!
Apparently, statutes passed by the people aren't accorded the same respect. Proposition 22 was passed overwhelmingly eight years ago. It specifically stated that marraige was between a man and a woman. The court majority cavalierly disregarded the will of the people with an arrogance worthy of King George.
The American Constitution was instituted as the foundation upon which all Americans can build and dream and grow. One aspect of its genius is the provision of a well considered procedure for change in itself. Full and careful consideration is required of each potential change, and a supermajority of votes in Congress and of states for ratification must be achieved before a change, known as an Amendment, is enshrined in the Constitution.
Conservatives honor and respect this God given document and its procedure for changing same. Liberals are so sure of their self-righteousness that they simply declare the Constitution changed to reflect their own personal beliefs - and the procedures and people they protect be damned.
Four rogue members of the California Supreme Court just flipped us all off today by announcing that they have decided the California Constitution requires that homosexuals be allowed to marry. California has been a state since 1850 and it took 158 years for this "right" to be discovered. Amazing isn't it?
The linguistic contortions they went through to justify this conclusion would make any circus ringmaster proud. They analogized this situation to a 1948 court decision striking down California's race based marraige restrictions. This analogy is flawed for several reasons, not the least of which is that the 1948 decision and all other civil rights decisions were made in accord with the Constitution and it's amendment procedures, not in spite of them. The 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments to the United States Constitution were the foundation for all these decisions. Most states did not fully implement these important rights until the second half of the 20th century, but the legal path was clear and the logic compelling.
Such is not the case here. Justice Marvin Baxter put it succinctly in his opinion dissenting from the holding. "Only one other American state recognizes the right the majority announces today. So far, Congress, and virtually every court to consider the issue, has rejected it. Nothing in our Constitution, express or implicit, compels the majority's startling conclusion that the age-old understanding of marraige - an understanding recently confirmed by an initiative law - is no longer valid. California statutes already recognize same-sex unions and grant them all the substantive legal rights this state can bestow. If there is to be a further sea change in the social and legal understanding of marraige itself, that evolution should occur by similar democratic means. The majority forecloses this ordinary process, and, in so doing, oversteps its authority."
The court majority goes on to recite all the recent statutes giving homosexual couples the rights of married couples. They then leap to the legal conclusion that all these laws justify their decision to change the Constitution. So if the Legislature passes a bunch of statutes, then the Constitution must be changed because of those statutes? Then the Legislature can itself amend the Constutution indirectly by passing statutes, even though it can't constitutionally do it directly? Poppycock!
Apparently, statutes passed by the people aren't accorded the same respect. Proposition 22 was passed overwhelmingly eight years ago. It specifically stated that marraige was between a man and a woman. The court majority cavalierly disregarded the will of the people with an arrogance worthy of King George.
Long Live the King!