Axis of Right

Three Native Rhode Islanders Commenting From the Right on Politics and Anything Else

Gay Marriage in California

Posted by Ryan on May 15, 2008

In a blatant example of judicial activism, the California Supreme Court today voted 4-3 to overturn the will of the people in order to impose gay marriage on the Golden State. 

If McCain nor Congressional Republicans won’t jazz up the conservative base, this should!  Marriage issues, cultural issues, judicial activism, court appointments, etc. are all at play here. 

AP photo.

6 Responses to “Gay Marriage in California”

  1. rightonoz said

    I’ll throw this grenade over the top and duck for cover!

    Firstly, don’t know the rights or wrongs of the decision in law – leave that to those who do.

    I actually support the right of same sex couples to the same legal protections as hetro couples. Whether that be the right to marry or some other legal union I don’t really care.

    All 6 of my children are hetro and I guess if I am honest I probably sigh a very slight sigh of relief, however if one were not, I could not think less of them nor would I want them to not have full legal recognition and protection if they were in a committed relationship.

    I actually see marriage in law as distinct from marriage in religious terms in any state that supposedly has legal separation of church and state. One is a union sanctified by the church according to it’s beliefs with certain moral expectations, the other is a legal recognition of a union of two people pledging to each other and enshrining certain protections, and in those terms I have no issues with what they have done in CA (provided it meets the constitutional test).

    Our Capital territory wants to legalise civil same sex unions, however the federal govt has said it will overturn any attempt. We have a very vocal religious minority that like to claim majority.

    I’ll now retreat to my foxhole!

  2. Mike said

    You don’t need a foxhole Oz. As has been the case too often lately, I don’t agree with your position on this one, but I have a lot of respect for the angle you take. There is a policy argument for legalizing same sex marriage and you made it well.

    Although I oppose gay marriage on the merits, my major issue with this is one you recognize. The California Constitution does not require the state to sanction same sex marriage. When a nation decides to have a democracy in accordance with a Constitution, that nation should have just that, a Constitution that is applied as written, and democratic rule determined by elected representatives. A Constitution that protects liberty is completely meaningless if a select few can pretend that Constitution means whatever they need it to mean when they can’t implement their agenda at the ballot box.

    If you take a look around the site, which it looks you are right now, you’ll see why I presently appreciate disagreements with you even more than I normally do.

  3. What more than half of all these emails miss is the fact that Californians have clearly spoken through Proposition 22. The issue could have been animal rights or any other silly subject, I would still be horrified to learn that four unknown mental midgets would write new law out of their empty heads.
    This cannot be allowed to stand because it creates laws and rights where there was none one day ago.

    Fernando Caballero


    On the basis of overturning the will of the people, it’s time to form a vigilance committee. 3-7-77

  5. rightonoz said

    This popped up in my morning news feed.

    The judge writing the opinion in this case is a Republican and, again, not commenting on the constitution aspects. I like his reasoning, as much as can be discerned at this stage.

    This judge, right or wrong puts a very human face to the right of politics. I don’t know if he will be crucified by the right for his decision, or if it is indeed the right decision in law, but just wanted to make comment.

    On Fernando and Cassel’s coments, votes mean nothing in law if there is a law or constitutional ruling that overides the vote, just an indication of point of view, no matter how overwhelming. There are endless reasons why a legislature should or must follow a proposition vote, however judges have to follow law and consitution, with (according to some in the Supreme’s) an ear to changing public and international sentiment. Not sure about that last bit…

  6. Mike said

    My problem with the Judges who did this is that they are not supposed to represent any side of the political spectrum. Their job is state what the policies written in the Constitution and laws passed in accordance with the Constitution are, not what they think those policies ought to be. In a democracy, that is up to the people and their elected representatives.

    If a Constitution designed to protect our liberties can be ignored and/or rewritten based on what one side or the other thinks is good policy, then that Constitution means and protects nothing. If these Judges want to implement their own views, they should resign from the bench and run for the legislature. Maybe their ideas would carry the day or maybe not, but that’s democracy. When the Constitution is silent, the people’s will must be respected, right or wrong.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: