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!
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?
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.
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!
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 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 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
the judges do not have power to overturn the will of the people. if the people voted tommorow to allow polygamy, the courts have no power to overturn this vote. the sole purpose of checks and balances is checking and balancing the branches of government, not the people. look it up, the constitution of california states in its first article that the final voice in all matters belong to the people. to say that the courts have this power that they used to overturn the voter approved ban on gay marriage is to go against all principles of democracy. furthermore, i find it absurd for you to call anyone who does not agree with validating these disgusting acts as homophobic. shopuld i call all gays heterophobics? how about anti-species?
Judicial Watch on Twitter
Judicial Watch on Facebook
Judicial Watch on YouTube
Judicial Watch RSS
Subscribe via RSS
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
the judges do not have power
the judges do not have power to overturn the will of the people. if the people voted tommorow to allow polygamy, the courts have no power to overturn this vote. the sole purpose of checks and balances is checking and balancing the branches of government, not the people. look it up, the constitution of california states in its first article that the final voice in all matters belong to the people. to say that the courts have this power that they used to overturn the voter approved ban on gay marriage is to go against all principles of democracy. furthermore, i find it absurd for you to call anyone who does not agree with validating these disgusting acts as homophobic. shopuld i call all gays heterophobics? how about anti-species?