May 27th, 2009 (01:43 am)
current location: Mom and Dad's.
current mood: frustrated
current song: Hair "I Got Life"
So obviously the Supreme Court of California upheld the ban on gay marriage. I expected it, but I don't agree with it.
What everyone seems to forget is that it's the duty of the Supreme Court (state or U.S.) to uphold their Constitution and determine whether a law violates that Constitution or not. It doesn't matter if the law in question was a ballot initiative from the people. The whole point of the Supreme Court-- the reason it's so undemocratic-- is so that it can keep the other branches of government in check without fear of backlash or worrying about re-election-- so that the Constitution will be upheld honestly, to the best of their ability.
The California Supreme Court interpreted the Constitution to protect equal rights under the law regardless of sexual orientation. If it was purely a church thing, it wouldn't be their jurisdiction. But we're talking about rights here. If two people want to marry each other, how, under the law, can we deny them the same legal rights simply because they're the same sex?
I know people would have been outraged if our Supreme Court had overturned prop 8, but the fact is that it was an initiative pushed by interest groups, put on the ballot and voted on. (Meaning it's not like a bunch of regular citizens were genuinely frazzled and sought to overturn gay marriage-- a bunch of Mormons with a lot of money did). Lots of states don't even have a ballot initiative system. Ours started with the California Progressives. But it's still just a law. Sure, it's more democratic that people can put laws forth (even though it's only wealthy individuals and interest groups who can afford to do it). But that doesn't make it any less subject to scrutiny by the Supreme Court. Their job is to make sure minorities aren't being exploited by the sudden whims of the majority.
This is different, of course, because now we've actually put forth an amendment to the California Constitution.
I'm sorry, but it's the most bigoted thing I've ever heard of-- putting forth an amendment to deny other people their rights when it has nothing whatsoever to do with you or your church. Do you really think the gays are going to be banging down the doors of the Church of Latter-Day Saints demanding a marriage? What right would they have to do that, even if they, for some reason, wanted to?
Eventually, I think the U.S. Supreme Court will agree to hear a gay marriage case. It might be a while. But they've agreed that marriage is a fundamental right (Loving v. Virginia) and that homosexuality is a right to privacy under the due process clause of the 14th Amendment (Lawrence v. Texas). Sandra Day O'Connor even wanted to strike down anti-sodomy laws on Equal Protection grounds, but they knew it would lead to a marriage case.
Congress could legalize gay marriage based on their ability to control interstate commerce-- you don't think anyone is fleeing to Massachusetts or Connecticut to get legally married? The gay marriage exception to full faith and credit is going to have to be challenged too.
I just hate that our state is so progressive, and yet so bizarre, backwards, and clueless.