I fully support the right of gays to marry - heck, I've even been in the wedding party of my lesbian cousin.
On the other hand, I think that the approach taken in MA, CT, and CA where the right has been decided by the Court, rather than by the legislature is terribly wrong.
The legistlature (or the people in the case of CA) are supposed to pass laws. The job of the courts is to interpret those laws in light of the Constitution. If that interpretation remained static women would not vote and African-Americans would be worth 3/5 a white man.
In all three cases the Supreme Courts of the state have said laws were passed which violated the State Constitution. I don't know about MA and CT's courts, but CA's is not a liberal court.
I am sad for the continuing erosion of the rule of law.
But this has always been the role of the judiciary. To protect human rights and to make sure that laws passed by the legislature are in accordance with the constitution. This is exactly what is happening when the courts come to the conclusion that banning gays from marrying is a violation of their constitutional rights.
Pages
Lovely!!
Liz
Liz
I have very mixed feelings about this.
I fully support the right of gays to marry - heck, I've even been in the wedding party of my lesbian cousin.
On the other hand, I think that the approach taken in MA, CT, and CA where the right has been decided by the Court, rather than by the legislature is terribly wrong.
I disagree, these judgical decisions confirm what
That's great!
Go CT!
The legistlature (or the people in the case of CA) are supposed to pass laws. The job of the courts is to interpret those laws in light of the Constitution. If that interpretation remained static women would not vote and African-Americans would be worth 3/5 a white man.
In all three cases the Supreme Courts of the state have said laws were passed which violated the State Constitution. I don't know about MA and CT's courts, but CA's is not a liberal court.
-Judy- me 36, DH 36, DS born 6/12/2000 and DD born 4/19/2009![]()
But this has always been the role of the judiciary. To protect human rights and to make sure that laws passed by the legislature are in accordance with the constitution. This is exactly what is happening when the courts come to the conclusion that banning gays from marrying is a violation of their constitutional rights.
-Judy- me 36, DH 36, DS born 6/12/2000 and DD born 4/19/2009![]()
I disagree slow, solely on the basis of the decisions.
Pages