Today, the California Supreme Court decided by a 4 to 3 vote that it knows better than the people of California. In 2000, the voters in California overwhelmingly passed Proposition 22, stating that marriage in California is between a man and a woman. Today, the will of the citizens of California was ruled unconstitutional.
California already has very strong domestic partnership laws which give most of the benefits of marriage to registered partners. Apparently this isn’t enough for the Court.
The decision can be found here.
Society defines the rights and the obligations of marriage. It determines, for example, the appropriate age when an individual can marry. An age limit is a limitation imposed by the society. If society can impose an age limitation, it can also impose limits on how marriage is defined.
I have had mixed feelings about a federal constitutional amendment on marriage. In 1996, the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) was passed, a federal version of Prop 22. It defines marriage for federal purposes as being between a man and a woman and allows states not to recognize same-sex marriage performed in other states. Because some activist judges have decided that the courts are the way to make social change, laws such as DOMA and Prop 22 are no longer enough to protect the institution and the concept of marriage. I think it is now time to move a federal constitutional amendment forward that will take the definition of marriage out of the purview of the courts. This is an issue that should be debated in legislatures where public policy issues should be decided.
Hugh Hewitt, a radio host who is a constitution law professor, posted this on his blog:
Posted by: Hugh Hewitt at 1:49 PM Today’s decision by the California Supreme Court is yet another judicial puscht. It is appalling. Incredibly, a feverish will to power on the part of small numbers of judges is rapidly eroding a citizen’s standing as the ultimate lawgiver. Courts unbound by any sense of limits, by any sense of restraint, threaten the basic understanding that has long undergirded the Republic –that the laws proceed from the open consent of the people, and that the ultimate laws, the federal and state constitutions, are documents of fixed meaning and structure, not merely window dressing on the rule of judicial elites or empty phrases waiting for elites to fill them with meaning.
Today’s ruling framed the question before the California Supreme Court this way:
The question we must address is whether, under these circumstances, the failure to designate the official relationship of same-sex couples as marriage violates the California Constitution
That was not in fact the central question. The central question was whether the representative nature of the California state government, including its initiative provisions, would be upheld.
They were not. The California Supreme Court asserted its ultimate power today in a way that is shameful and deeply destructive of the ability of a free people to govern themselves.
Tags: DOMA, Prop 22, same-sex marriage
May 16, 2008 at 7:55 am
[...] coakford at Random Thought, the ruling was less welcome. S/he feels that the definition of marriage should a matter of public policy, not one for the [...]
August 4, 2008 at 7:49 am
[...] There is another important issue to address. In 2000, 61% of California voters approved Proposition 22. A clear majority of voters expressed their political will that California public policy should only recognize marriage between a man and a woman . In 2008, by a 4 to 3 vote, the California Supreme Court overturned the will of the California voters. Their lengthy written opinion had to stretch to find a civil right in the state constitution to make their case to allow same-sex marriage. One of the arguments of the anti Prop 8 groups is that Prop 8 takes away a constitutional right to marriage. The right was only created by the slimmest of majorities of the court in a very strained opinion. Proposition 8 only restores the will of the people as expressed by Proposition 22 in 2000. I’ll write more about my thoughts on this later. I just wanted to make a quick outline of the issues. Click here to read what I wrote in May. [...]