EW EW EW EW EW!
In response to the opposition arguments that the court should overturn Prop 8 because it strips fundamental rights from the minority: "What I'm picking up from the oral argument in this case is this court should willy-nilly disregard the will of the people," said Justice Joyce Kennard.
I'm sorry, willy nilly? The supreme court is supposed to uphold the constitution, as well as the SPIRIT of said constitution. The US Supreme Court ruled Brown vs. Board of Education precisely because the will of the majority violated the letter and the spirit of the 14th ammendment. Prop 8 in California is no different. It is a slight majority of those that participated in the election effectively stripping fundamental rights from an unpopular minority. How is this possible?? Simple majorities are all well in good for things that we disagree on, like tax increases/cuts, spending, etc. HOWEVER! I believe the gay marriage issue is a different breed entirely. What if the slight majority decided that Asians couldn't get married? What if we as a state, enacted anti-miscegenation laws? The reason that these examples are morally disgusting is not because of the racist attitudes or the fact that we as a majority don't find miscegenation appalling, its because they would be a denial of a fundamental right by a majority over a minority. Anyone who says that these examples are dissimilar should take a long hard look at themselves and question whether their own opinions of the people involved are clouding their judgement of what the law should be.
This is of course beyond the fact that it really should be harder for a state to change is constitution. The US requires 2/3 in order to propose change to the US constitution, and even then requires ratification by 2/3 (that's 66%) of states, but California needs only a simple majority in a simple vote? I am sorry, but there is a reason our founding fathers saw fit to make it so difficult to change such a central part of our government and society: to prevent prejudice, passing opinion, and flashy expensive campaigns to sweep large changes in our government; in other words, to prevent EXACTLY THIS from happening.
This means that the court's job is to be a safeguard against said changes, and if need be, reject the passing fancy of the populous in favor of protecting rights.
Posts
