justice isn’t always on your side
the CA Supreme Court held this morning that Prop8 – the voter-passed amendment to the CA Constitution that defines “marriage” as only between a man and a woman – is to be upheld and not ruled unconstitutional.
The language of Justice George’s decision seemed almost regretful, as he wrote that “our task in the present proceeding is not to determine whether the provision at issue is wise or sound as a matter of policy or whether we, as individuals, believe it should be a part of the California Constitution.” Instead, he wrote, “our role is limited to interpreting and applying the principles and rules embodied in the California Constitution, setting aside our own personal beliefs and values.” — “California Supreme Court Upholds Ban on Same-Sex Marriage”, NYT
all over Facebook and Twitter and everywhere else people are saying “i’m so disappointed in the Court” and “WTF is wrong with California” etc., but i wasn’t expecting anything but what happened, because that is what i expect courts to do.
to be honest, while i’m extremely sad that Prop8 is still in effect and sickened that so many Californians are so closed-minded and homophobic and stuck to “traditional values” in a constantly-changing world, i totally don’t think that the courts should be overturning anything voter-passed unless there was some sort of legal reason why the act was invalid (which they determined it wasn’t), and i agree with George’s statement of why they did what they did. maybe i have too much blind faith in the supposed non-partisan function of the legal system, or i’m missing something, but i don’t want court justices deciding our morals and values, even if i agree with them.
Filed in culture and random linkage, politics and news | Tagged with prop8 | Comments (4)4 Responses to “justice isn’t always on your side”
Leave a Reply
I don’t like the idea of judges deciding our morality either. But, what gets me is the idea that the majority has been allowed to discriminate against the minority. When is that ever ok?
Talk to anyone with a domestic partnership, and you’ll realize that there are many ways in which it is not legally equal to marriage. Maybe there wouldn’t be such an uproar if it were.
This whole thing is just wrong.
The word “discriminate” is being thrown around far too… well, indiscriminately. The fact of the matter is, Proposition 8 and the resulting amendment were not discriminatory in the legal sense of the word.
I know, it sounds ridiculous… but it’s true. Discrimination is a term of art; it means treating someone differently because that person is a member of a suspect class, e.g., treating a woman differently than a man or treating a black person differently than a white person.
A constitutional amendment that defines marriage as being between a man and a woman treats heterosexuals and homosexuals equally. A homosexual man cannot marry a man; a heterosexual man cannot marry a man. A homosexual woman cannot marry a woman; a heterosexual woman cannot marry a woman. Whether you are heterosexual or homosexual (or bisexual), you are treated equally under the law.
Now, that law will certainly affect homosexuals and bisexuals (who, presumably, are far more interested in marrying members of the same sex) more than heterosexuals… but that doesn’t make it discriminatory. No one can be married to someone of the same sex, no matter what their sexual orientation. Everyone is treated equally under the law. That’s not discrimination.
Is it a good law? Is it fair? Those are entirely different questions. But they aren’t questions for the courts to answer (just like the court shouldn’t have tried to institute same-sex marriage). They should be left to the legislature and the people, and the people have spoken (for now). I fully expect to see a proposed amendment to strike the Proposition 8 amendment from California’s constitution, and that’s how it should have been handled in the first place.
Just curious about your logic… Would a law that said “no one can worship at a synagogue” be discrimination? No, because it would apply whether you were Christian or Jewish. Since it applied equally to all people, it could not be discrimination. Not buying it. But feel free to try and convince me that your legal reasoning is sound.
Or if you prefer a more exact analogy: Marriage is defined as being between one able bodied person and another able bodied person. It’s frankly difficult to produce good examples because so many of them are so pattently out of bounds (between one white and another white, etc.) It is all well and good to say that it is simply a definition of a legal status and if applied equally to all then it must not be discrimation. But the rub is that the definition itself is what is discriminatory, not the application of the rule.