Friday, May 16, 2008

Activist judges need to give it a rest

One thing that has always bothered me is how one group of judges can over-rule 300 million people. And that's exactly what happened when abortion became illegal for all Americans.

Or, in today's case, one court over-ruling the will of the state of California.

As you've probably heard by now, the California Supreme Court has now over-ruled the good people of California who voted in 2000 to make gay marriage illegal in their state. Thus, by a 4-3 ruling of judges, gay marriage is now legal in California.

This is another prime example of judges making decisions based on their hearts, and not by the law of the land.

I have no personal problem with gay mariage. Whether or not gay people have a right to get married is not at the top of my concerns list. However, the fact that judges can over-rule the will of the people is a major concern of mine.

In his written opinion, California Chief Justice Ron George said, "Limiting the designation of marriage to a union 'between a man and a woman' is unconstitutional and must be stricken from the statute."

My question for Chief Justice George is this, "Where in the Constitution does it say anything about marriage, let alone that it cannot be designated as just between a man and a woman.? Where? I cannot find it? I cannot find it in the U.S. Constitution let alone the California Constitution."

The 10th amendment of the U.S. Constitution states that anything not listed in this here Constitution be left to the people or the states to decide. And I challenge any person to show me where in the Constitution the founders discussed marriage.

Should gays have the right to marry in California? That decision is up to the people of California. Should non-gays have a right to marry in California? This too is up to the people.

The people of California spoke, however, and they approved a law banning gay marriage. The California Supreme Court spoke too, and it basically said "to hell with the will of the people. To hell with the 10th amendment."

I understand it seems discriminatory that gays not be allowed to marry, however this is a decision not for the courts to decide, it is a decision for the people to decide. That's what the Constitution says point blank.

If decisions like this are not over-ruled by the U.S. Supreme Court, and ultimately stopped altogether, this may lead to a slippery slope on the way to complete anarchy, or at least a land where judges can make the rule of the land without checks and balances.

What rights are they going to trample on next???

The Constitution is not hard to understand. And if this lowly RT can figure it out, why can't well educated judges???


DB said...

"Where in the Constitution does it say anything about marriage, let alone that it cannot be designated as just between a man and a woman.?

Exactly. So it should not be banned either. There isn't any US Constitutional Amendment banning it yet, which is the law of the land.

Anyways, the representatives of the people (as we are a Republic still) passed a law allowing it which was vetoed by the state Governor who said that it is a decision for the Judges to decide on. I don't know how more clear it can be than that. If the people pass a Constitutional Amendment, then cool, they followed the steps of Democracy. So be it. That is how the system works.

Thinking Sage said...

It is my opinion that most all of the things ruled on by the state supreme court could be easily voted on an enacted or retracted by the people.

Good post thanks for stopping by.