Washington, DC
“Today, a bare majority of the California Supreme Court, in an audacious political power grab, usurped the democratic process by redefining marriage. The laws of this nation rely on the proper functioning of the courts, including a proper balance of powers, and the judiciary’s ability to demonstrate restraint. This ruling undermines the rule of law. I’m sure bigamists and other ‘polyamorists’ will take solace in this activist and radical ruling because, if its logic is followed, it will be difficult to keep marriage legally limited to only two people.”
Judicial Watch filed an amicus brief with the California Supreme Court that asked it to uphold the traditional definition of marriage. The brief, available here, noted that “judges are not free to rewrite statutes to say what they would like or what they believe to be better social policy.”
###
Comments
Time to Recall!!!!
When arrogant judges attempt to overrule the constitutional will of the people it's time to start a RECALL and send these tin plated shyster judges packing!
California Overturning Marriage
I skimmed over your brief, which I consider much better written than "Focus on the Family"'s briefs on the same topic.
But now that the California court has ignored all the legal principles you mention in that brief, will the US Supreme Court get a chance to weigh in on the issue?
Supreme Court rulings
Why are the Executive Branches of government following Supreme Court rulings that are not unanimous? If all the justices can not agree on the meaning of the Constitution in a particular case, how can their opinions, even if they are majority opinions, be considered law? Requiring that all the judges find common ground on the meaning of the Constitution would result in rulings more inline with the Constitution as written by the framers and approved by the governed citizens.
Checks and Balances
The judges followed their interpretation of the Constitution, which is their job. All states are set-up with 3 branches of government that have the authority to over-ride the other in this system of checks and balances. It was judges that overturned segregation (Brown vs Board)) even after allowing segregation (Plessy vs Ferguson), it was judges that allowed inter-racial marriage (Loving vs Virginia). Judges have the ability to interpret the law without applying emotion (unlike Governors and Congressmen). If you look at what's both fair and equal, you cannot deny the same rights to two citizens of majority age that are afforded to two other citizens based solely on their gender. But if you really want to get technical, marriage is a religious institution, and the United States cannot legally support a religion, so all marriages should be civil unions. But try getting THAT passed LOL!
Re; Checks and Balances
You are seriously confused. No, it is not the judges job to "follow _their_ interpretation". It is their job to interpret it more precisely than that. That is why the majority on this Court is being criticized for "judicial activism" and the like.
And no, marriage is NOT "a religious institution". If that were so, atheists would not be able to marry. It sounds like you are confusing 'wedding' with 'marriage'. A church wedding, of course, is religious. But it is no 'institution' either.
Finally, as the minority on the Court already pointed out, the state has always before understood 'marriage' to be between a man and a woman, so the majority was changing this definition in their ruling. But they changed it without any convincing legal basis; it looks like it is being done to pander to the "gay marriage" advocates. This is why Judicial Watch calls this "an audacious power grab".
What did the marriage law
What did the marriage law state before being overturned by the CA.Supreme Court? Did it specifically state that marriage was between a man and a woman?
Anyway, I disagree with the court's decision and think it is dangerous to allow that decision to stand.
the basis for your POLITICAL
the basis for your POLITICAL comment has absolutely no merit in law. Law is not judochristian bibical harrasement but supposely to be given equal to all no matter sex, creed or race. Now since gayism can fall under sex or creed then the ruling did follow the letter of law of giving all the right of marriage. Your statement about poly's is so absurd as it is plain to demean gays. The JW is truely homophopic
Post new comment