What Will the Courts Legislate Next?

Please contribute to my "escape California" fund.

Why? Because of this.

The court held that people have a fundamental right to marry the person of their choice and struck down marriage laws limiting matrimony to opposite-sex couples as a violation of the state constitution's equal protection guarantees.

"One of the core elements embodied in the state constitutional right to marry is the right of an individual and a couple to have their own official family relationship accorded respect and dignity equal to that accorded the family relationships of other couples," wrote Chief Justice Ronald M. George, joined by Justices Joyce L. Kennard, Kathryn Mickle Werdegar and Carlos Moreno.

State laws that have limited gay unions to domestic partnerships "impinge upon the fundamental interests of same-sex couples," George wrote.

Back in 2000, California voters decided via Proposition 22 that the word 'marriage' applied only to legal unions between one man and one woman. The measure passed by 61%.

And it most certainly isn't the first time that a California law has been "judicially mandated." I'm seeing a pattern.

This isn't about same-sex marriage or about "discrimination" or about "equal protection," not really. It's about tyranny. Because whether you or I think that same-sex marriage is okay or not, no one's life, liberty or property is harmed or hindered by the state if the voters decide not to label as 'marriage' a legal union between two men or two women.

In contrast, life, liberty and property are very much in peril when a judicial body presumes to overrule the will of the people.

Here’s a Bear Flag League Roundup while I simmer. Some of these folks are lawyers and there are at least three to whom the subject at hand might apply.

Justin Levine

While I have no problems with the result of this decision as a matter of social policy, it remains problematic in terms of the judicial activism debate. In addition to the dissenting opinions, you might want to pay particular attention to footnote # 52 in the majority’s decision (starting on pg. 79 of the PDF document) which underscores the problem. Ironically, the majority doesn’t seem to grasp the obvious contradictions and tensions in their reasoning that footnote 52 presents. Merely citing past court decisions is not a valid substitute for reasoning in this instance, nor is it adequate to explain the blatant double standards in social policy (beyond the personal whims and political preferences of the Justices).

Tammy Bruce

When Robert Mugabe nullifies an election in Zimbabwe, we cry out in pious indignation. But when it happens here, our tyrants are toasted as enlightened liberators.

Boi from Troi

This summer, gays and lesbians will be coming to California to gain legal recognition of their relationships just as they did on Valentine’s weekend 2004 when San Francisco issued same-sex marriage licenses. And like that romantic weekend get-away, they had better make plans fast.

The Foothill Cities Blog

Flap’s Dental Blog

Daniel Blatt (and here)

I disagree with this ruling because I believe the decisions the Court made better belong with the legislature and/or the people.

Holy Coast

Had the voters been in favor of gay marriage by 61%, I wouldn't have liked it but would have accepted it because that was the will of the voters. If I couldn't live with that decision, I could move to a state that hadn't gone so far down the liberal craphole. However, the voters of California overwhelmingly rejected gay marriage, but because that decision was politically incorrect, the left feels they have a right to use only 4 judges to impose something on Californians that they clearly did not want.

Infinite Monkeys

Come November, there will likely be a proposition on the ballot to insert into the California Constitution the legal definition of "marriage" as between only a man and a woman. So maybe all this will be moot by 2009 -- unless, of course, the court doubles down by later declaring even amendments to the state constitution unconstitutional. From this absurd court? I expect it.

Lex Communis

First, why not polygamy? Why is "two" a "magic number"? Could it be because we have two arms? Could it be because we have two eyes?

Or could it be because there are two sexes, and now that the idea that the complementarity of the different genders is now considered outmoded and irrelevant, why should "two" be a limitation any more than the idea that a "man" and a "woman" constitute a married couple?

Little Miss Attila

Mayor Sam

McGehee

Apparently four out of seven California supreme court justices drive a Fiat.

Red County

Presto Pundit

Hugh Hewitt

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.

SoCal Pundit

The Right Coast

Comments

[The Anchoress]

I'm actually really concerned about what this can mean to the Christian churches (and orthodox Jews, etc) and what steps might be taken to prevent crippling lawsuits, and so forth. Touched on it here, Juliette.

[baldilocks]

Religious liberty is indeed an intrinsic part of this whole issue. And all liberty can be curtailed via lawsuit.

[Phelps]

The upside is that this may be just enough to tip CA red this election, at least at the executive level.

[baldilocks]

Phelps, Dude, just say no.

[freadom]

Awesome post. This is something that should be of major concern to Americans. It's not about marriage, it's about defending the rights of the people.

Again great post. I wrote about this on my blog. I ranted.

[Boifromtroy]

OMG you are going to have to marry a woman!

Seriously, I no longer get why people get worked up over this. No one had their freedom taken away. No church will have to gaymarry anyone.

In fact, this allows churches much greater freedom to recognize marriage as they wish. It was a good ruling for the gays and for God.

[Ralph Phelan]

Boifromtroi:

I'm with Justin Levine on this one: however much you may like the ends - gay marriage - the mean - declaring the will of the state legislature and the voters nulll and void - is extremely problematic.

I don't see why the people of California bother paying legislators and a Governor if the courts get to decide everything anyway.

There are all sorts of "slippery slope" arguments people bring up about gay marriage: if it's a right, why aren't polygamy, incest, marriage to minors and bestiality also "rights." None of these arguments apply to gay marriage instituted because the voters felt like it. All of these arguments apply to gay marriage instituted because the court said it was a right.

[AME]

No church will have to gaymarry anyone.

Wait.

[Richard]

I'll contribute to your "escape California" fund only if you promise to move to the D.C. area, preferably on the Virginia side. :)

[Michael Ejercito]

Societies can and do set standards on how families and relationship are organized. A society could theoretically allow people to organize mutual relationships, record the relationships and its terms, and call it whatever they please to call it, regardless if you agree with it or not.

But how should it be done. It is best for this to be done democratically. Democracy is not perfect; I fail to see what alternatives are better.

As Justin Levine pointed out, the court contradicted itself. In fact, this ruling can be cited in another court to uphold a same-sex marriage ban.