Legalization of same-sex marriage in California & Massachusetts
Many who oppose same-sex marriage seem to argue their position based largely on God and religious convictions, not on a legal basis or interpretation of existing civil law.
Those who argue that the people have a right to vote on the matter of same-sex marriage misunderstand what this is about. This is not about "what the majority of people want." It is about rights as defined by our existing and long-accepted laws.
The recognition of civil rights is not traditionally put to the people. Rights are given, not removed, by the Legislature. They are interpreted and protected by the courts.
Would those with disabilities have free access? Would women vote? Would we have mixed-race marriages? Would African-Americans have the right to vote? Indeed, would they even be free if the decision had been put to the people? The advancement of civil rights - the rights of women, of people of color, of the physically challenged - has come about through the testing of our laws in our courts.
Every one of these topics in their day met with great opposition. How many of these rights would have been granted if put to the voter of the day?
If the people were asked to vote on these matters in the days in which the issue was initially addressed, when the topics were so emotionally charged, these rights and protections probably would not have been granted. Decades later, we see how obvious these rights are. Extending these rights to those previously denied them did not threaten or undermine our society; to the contrary, we are stronger for it. The same is true for the matter before us today. The right of two people of the same sex to marry is not a matter for the populous to decide.
The Supreme Court of California has tested the state's laws and has come to a clear and reasoned judgment. Indeed the purpose of our judicial system is to protect the rights of those whose voice is not yet loud enough, to guarantee that they too have the same rights that are enjoyed by the majority. To this end, the Court acted exactly as they should have. Marriage is a right - a right available to all our citizens regardless of the gender of the parties.
Contrary to the inevitable claims that this judgment was made by "activist judges," they have not been activist or revolutionary. In fact, their ruling stems from a conservative letter-of-the-law interpretation of our constitution.
Those who argue that the people have a right to vote on the matter of same-sex marriage misunderstand what this is about. This is not about "what the majority of people want." It is about rights as defined by our existing and long-accepted laws.
The recognition of civil rights is not traditionally put to the people. Rights are given, not removed, by the Legislature. They are interpreted and protected by the courts.
Would those with disabilities have free access? Would women vote? Would we have mixed-race marriages? Would African-Americans have the right to vote? Indeed, would they even be free if the decision had been put to the people? The advancement of civil rights - the rights of women, of people of color, of the physically challenged - has come about through the testing of our laws in our courts.
Every one of these topics in their day met with great opposition. How many of these rights would have been granted if put to the voter of the day?
If the people were asked to vote on these matters in the days in which the issue was initially addressed, when the topics were so emotionally charged, these rights and protections probably would not have been granted. Decades later, we see how obvious these rights are. Extending these rights to those previously denied them did not threaten or undermine our society; to the contrary, we are stronger for it. The same is true for the matter before us today. The right of two people of the same sex to marry is not a matter for the populous to decide.
The Supreme Court of California has tested the state's laws and has come to a clear and reasoned judgment. Indeed the purpose of our judicial system is to protect the rights of those whose voice is not yet loud enough, to guarantee that they too have the same rights that are enjoyed by the majority. To this end, the Court acted exactly as they should have. Marriage is a right - a right available to all our citizens regardless of the gender of the parties.
Contrary to the inevitable claims that this judgment was made by "activist judges," they have not been activist or revolutionary. In fact, their ruling stems from a conservative letter-of-the-law interpretation of our constitution.
Comments
Sort By:
Raves
|
Date
-
reply
Equal rights - there are gay people in the world - you can choose anyone you want to be with for the rest of your life - the government must acknowledge that union - has nothing to do with religion - or morality or your concept of right and wrong - people are going to love who their heart tells them to love - who are you to interferer or judge that?
