Wednesday, May 27, 2009


Speaking of the court, I'm disappointed in our own California Supremes for upholding the Gay Marriage ban vote of last year, even though they at least allowed those married couples to remain married.

I won't pretend to be able to judge this on its legal merits so I defer to the court's judgement on whether it's a sound decision. I remain uncomfortable with the idea that as a society we can vote on who gets human rights this year. Next year it will probably come up again and if there are cool Gays on TV we'll probably allow gay marriage. Then the following year if there is an unpopular Gay man, then we'll take the right away again.

Hey, the Jews got used to it, the Gays will too.


wamk said...

Can you show where in the Constitution it says anyone has a "right" to marry?

Danielk said...

Nope. It's just like women and voting.

Hey, if we all get together and say that gays don't have the right to vote, this whole problem goes away forever!

Publius said...

See, your error is that you think courts should "make things right." Courts are not for any such thing. Courts are ONLY for adjudicating the WRITTEN law. You want to "make things right" then you get the legislature to do it.

Danielk said...

There is this thing in the constitution about all men being created equal and having the right to pursue happiness. Obviously that didn't mean ALL men, of course. Sloppy writing on the founding fathers' part.

wamk said...

Piker, we've had this discussion before.

The Founders didn't give women the right to vote, and they didn't give slaves to vote.

It wasn't until a groundswell of public opinion changed, and those rights were granted.

Would you rather a Country were there are no rules, except those deemd "right" by 7 or 9 people in robes?

I'm sure you would feel exactly the same about legislating from the bench if the 7 judges in California suddenly decided abortion was illegal? Or if they decided that anyone could carry a concealed weapon? Or if they decided that all people in California now had to attend Catholic churches?

Of course you wouldn't be okay with those things.

Until the gay marriage lobby can convince a majority of voters, it won't happen. You don't like that decision, but it's the best system we have, right?

Danielk said...

I think you've misread my post - I'm disappointed in the ruling but it's fine until it comes up for a vote again. Of course, the reason I think it's fine is because learned judges have said the vote was valid.

Still we can't put EVERYTHING up to a vote either. Right now in California we just voted simultaneously to an increase in public spending AND no more taxes, and since we already have a balanced budget law someone besides the voters will have to decide what the voters get.

By the way, the Civil Rights act of 1964 was never put up to a popular vote. Maybe we should suspend that until we can get it sorted out?

wamk said...

Do you understand how representative government works, or are you just trying to be funny in your last bit about Civil Rights?

Danielk said...

The judges are appointed by our representatives, yes? And by the way, I'm ALWAYS trying to be funny.

Please enlighten me about why civil rights legislation passing without a direct vote is different than the current marriage controversy.

wamk said...

If a legislator votes for a bill that the voting public doesn't like, there is recourse. Those same voters can choose to not re-elect that legislator next time around, and vote in someone who more closely aligns with their feelings on certain matters.

There is no recourse for the voter if a judge decides to legislate from the bench.

In your State, the issue of gay marriage has been put before the voters. Twice, I believe. And both times, a majority of voters has said "no". The proponents of gay marriage then turned to the Courts, who initially said "yes", until now.

The supporters of gay marriage need to do a better job of PR to plead their case to the voters.

From Wikipedia, on the Civil Rights Act of 1964:

On the return from the winter recess, however, matters took a significant turn. The pressure of the civil rights movement, the March on Washington, and the President's public advocacy of the Act had made a difference of opinion in Representatives' home districts, and soon it became apparent that the petition would acquire the necessary signatures. To prevent the humiliation of the success of the petition, Chairman Smith allowed the bill to pass through the Rules Committee. The bill was brought to a vote in the House on February 10, 1964, and passed by a vote of 290 to 130, and sent to the Senate.The Civil Rights Act passed because there was tremendous support for it in the Districts back home. Gay marriage doesn't have that yet.

Perhaps you can enlighten me as to why the two issues are exactly the same?

And I notice that you didn't address my questions to you in comment #5. Would you be ok with the California Courts suddenly deciding those items listed were ok?