Note: due to time constraints and formatting issues, I am only copying an excerpt of this post from my blog. I'll leave a link for those who wish to continue reading. Quite a lot has been said concerning the recent decision to overturn as unconstitutional the not-exactly recently passed Proposition 8 amendment to California's constitution. Everyone from the blogosphere to National Review to the American Principles Project has something to say about this egregious decision--not worthy of the name "legal" decision--handed down by the titularly-Honorable Vaughn Walker of the US district court in San Francisco.
Because I have already linked a large part of the response, and because there is so much said, I would like to focus on two columns. The first is by Professor Robert P George, who may be the nation's brightest legal scholar of his generation. The second is written by the Witherspoon Institute's Mr Matthew J Franck*.
Professor George likens this ruling to the court's previous badly-decided decision, Roe v Wade. I would say that it is equally worth comparing to Casey v Planned Parenthood, since in the end the "reasoning" which Kennedy used to reach the majority decision is similar to Walker's in that neither really made an attempt at reasoning, but rather handed down an opinion which brushes aside all counterarguments without so much as the courtesy of an answer. Writes Professor George,
|
Professor Robert P George wrote:
Following California’s Proposition 8, which restored the historic definition of marriage in that state as the union of husband and wife, a federal lawsuit has been filed to invalidate traditional marriage laws.
It would be disastrous for the justices to do so. They would repeat the error in Roe v. Wade: namely, trying to remove a morally charged policy issue from the forums of democratic deliberation and resolve it according to their personal lights....Lacking any basis in the text, logic or original understanding of the Constitution, the decision became a symbol of the judicial usurpation of authority vested in the people and their representatives. It sent the message that judges need not be impartial umpires—as both John Roberts and Sonia Sotomayor say they should be—but that judges can impose their policy preferences under the pretext of enforcing constitutional guarantees.
|
That this sets a bad precedent ought to be clear to anyone, regardless of which side he may take in both the abortion and the gay marriage debates. To give the power utterly and without recourse to overrule a democratically passed law to one man (or even a group of men smaller than the whole population) is to destroy the very basis of a democracy; similarly so, when this power is given to overrule the legislation of elected officials. So long as one branch acts contrary to the laws of the land, the charge of tyranny is justly leveled against that branch. By inflicting their own views upon our country, over and above the will of us, the people, the judiciary branch has usurped power which is not legitimately theirs.
Continue reading on the Equus nom Veritas blog.
Tags: Culture Marriage Gender-and-Sexu Ality
