In establishing a system of checks and balances, our founding fathers did not intend for judges to vote with a gavel. Interpreting the Constitution is far from what has been done by many liberal judges since the era of FDR. Proposition 8 is the voice of the people setting guidelines for marriage in their state constitution. The court has no right to overturn that vote because of personal bias. Marriage is not in the Constitution and therefore not a natural right. Sexual orientation gives no grounds for special rights not granted in the Constitution.
We should all be able to pursue happiness but that does not allow the courts cart blanche for the restructuring of societal norms. We will be watching closely to see what the California court decides. Soon we will know if the California Supreme Court has read Abraham Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address and will uphold the will of the people. Does the power stem from the court, or from the people as Abraham said…” and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.”
Calif. Supreme Court to take up gay marriage ban
Published: Wednesday, Nov. 19, 2008SAN FRANCISCO — California’s highest court agreed Wednesday to hear several legal challenges to the state’s new ban on same-sex marriage but refused to allow gay couples to resume marrying before it rules.
The California Supreme Court accepted three lawsuits seeking to nullify Proposition 8, a voter-approved constitutional amendment that overruled the court’s decision in May that legalized gay marriage.
All three cases claim the measure abridges the civil rights of a vulnerable minority group. They argue that voters alone did not have the authority to enact such a significant constitutional change.
As is its custom when it takes up cases, the court did not elaborate on its decision.
Along with the gay rights groups and local governments petitioning to overturn the ban, the measure’s sponsors and Attorney General Jerry Brown had urged the Supreme Court to consider whether Proposition 8 passes legal muster.
The court directed Brown and lawyers for the Yes on 8 campaign to submit their arguments for why the ballot initiative should not be nullified by Dec. 19. It said lawyers for the plaintiffs, who include same-sex couples who did not wed before the election, must respond before Jan. 5. Oral arguments could be scheduled as early as March, according to court spokeswoman Lynn Holton.