Marriage Decision
Here is the decision.
The California Supreme Court upholds the constitutional amendment but finds that it cannot be applied retroactively.
From my brief skim of the decision, I'm amazed at the tone of the concurrences, i.e., the people can amend the Constitution, but they can't change the Court's decision; all that the people decided was the official designation used for gay unions, everything else remains; the government still has an obligation to make gay unions in every way identical to real marriages - perhaps by enacting a law that recognizes the right of gay couples to make babies?
It's amazing how seven lawyers can amend the constitution, but when the people dare - dare! - to return the constitution back to the way it existed last year, it's as if they had violated holy writ.
Amazing.
Please redirect this feed
3 years ago
Posts
4 comments:
No lawyer-speak. Was the will of the people upheld or no? From what I've read here, you're saying 'not really.'
"...In a sense, this trilogy of cases illustrates the variety of limitations that our
constitutional system imposes upon each branch of government — the executive,
the legislative, and the judicial..."
'Imposes...Limitations????'
The answer is "grudgingly" and "not really."
The court upheld the initiative, but held that it was really, really limited and did not apply retroactively.
Since the will of the people has always been against gay marriage, the fact that gay marriage was "legal" for six months is contrary to the will of the people.
Rex,
If that's a quote from the decision, it really is an example of spin.
The political branches did not impose any limitation on the court's social engineering by fiat. It was left up to the people to cobble together something at the last minute - while bearing the burden of persuasion - to restore something that had never been seriously questioned in the history of California.
Post a Comment