The Obligatory Prop 8 Post

What can I say? Honestly, I had a feeling it would be struck down the entire time. It was inevitable at this point that gay marriage would be allowed anyway. Chalk it up there with Roe v. Wade as another horrible Supreme Court decision and move on. There’s still the good fight to fight regardless.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

6 Responses to The Obligatory Prop 8 Post

  1. Crude says:

    The only surprise to me is that Roberts didn’t join with the majority again. The courts do whatever they want, and at this point the idea of amending the constitution to provide or remove rights is pretty well dead. If you want to change the constitution, you change the SCOTUS.

    • The Supreme Court pretty much is the Constitution. If they declare something, there is literally nothing anybody can do about it. Getting a constitutional amendment is way too hard.

      • In an American Government class in high school, I learned that in the beginning of our country’s history the Supreme Court really had no power. The Constitution was way to vague on what they did so no one knew what to do with it and most self respecting people wanted no part in it.

        That changed with the Marbury vs Madison decision of course, where John Marshall (brilliantly in my opinion) established the doctrine of judicial review. Even then there really was no way for the Court to enforce it’s decision. It had no army to go out and make sure it’s will was done like our other branches of government. Even today there really is no real way for the Court to make sure it’s decision are carried out without the help of the other branches.

        Essentially people could ignore their decisions and sometimes did as with Andrew Jackson and the removal of Indians. I asked my teacher, “If the Court technically has no way to enforce their decisions, why do people listen to them?” His answer, “Because people have been listening to them for the past two hundred years and you simply can’t forgo two hundred years of tradition.”

        Really? So, basically the decisions of this kangaroo court stand simply because we the people have been doing it for two hundred years and have not stopped? Talk about complacency of the people.

  2. The problem is that the alternative, without passing an amendment (which is basically impossible but which I am very much in favor of), is that we just pick and choose which court decisions to follow. This is no way to run a country; you need an arbiter of truth.

    What we’re getting now, though, is not tradition, but the creation of rights based on the political whims of the justices. The justices are in favor of gay marriage, so states no longer have the right to define marriage for themselves. It is this seizing of state power to create a weird new right to marriage or something that is the problem here. The role of the court is not to create new rights based on the way the political breeze is blowing.

    • Agreed, however, I think you misunderstand exactly what the Prop 8 decision did. The Court stated that the respondents did not have standing to defend the law in court. Thus, the decision of the 9th circuit was invalidated although the decision of the federal district court still stood. As it stands today, states still have the right to define marriage however they wish as no national right to gay marriage was declared; however, the language of the majority decision written by Justice Kennedy does suggest that if the prospect of a national right was brought before it in the future, they would probably declare a national right to same sex marriage. It’s troubling, but as it stands now there is no such thing as a national right to same sex marriage.

      • In theory, yes; in practice, as you said if a gay marriage case ever makes it to court the prop 8 decision has pretty much clinched its eventual victory. It’s rather like the Emancipation Proclamation, a document I am really tired of hearing being minimized or downplayed. Technically it can only be used for a very specific purpose; practically the repercussions are far more long-ranging.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s