May 20, 2008
Tuesday, May 20, 2008
Dissent from the California gay marriage ruling
sds:
#1 - Nothing in our Constitution, express or implicit, compels the majority’s startling conclusion that the age-old understanding of marriage — an understanding recently confirmed by an initiative law — is no longer valid. California statutes already recognize same-sex unions and grant them all the substantive legal rights this state can bestow. If there is to be a further sea change in the social and legal understanding of marriage itself, that evolution should occur by similar democratic means. The majority forecloses this ordinary democratic process, and, in doing so, oversteps its authority.
#2 - [W]e should hesitate to use our authority to take one side in an ongoing political debate. The accommodation of disparate views is democracy’s essential challenge. Democracy is never more tested than when its citizens honestly disagree, based on deeply held beliefs. In such circumstances, the legislative process should be given leeway to work out the differences. It is inappropriate for the judiciary to interrupt that process and impose the views of its individual members, while the opinions of the people are still evolving.
Hat tip: WSJ Law Blog
Good stuff. These issues apply to many more things than just gay marriage.
Lines like this are why I love James Taranto.
UPDATE - bumped: “In an item Friday, we said that Canada has seven states. As Canada still uses the metric system, it would have been more precise to say that it has 10 provinces, which is the equivalent of approximately seven states.” —Best of the Web Today May 19, 2008
