minority rule
“But a bare majority of this court, not satisfied with the pace of democratic change, now abruptly forestalls that process and substitutes, by judicial fiat, its own social policy views for those expressed by the People themselves. Undeterred by the strong weight of state and federal law and authority, the majority invents a new constitutional right, immune from the ordinary process of legislative consideration. The majority finds that our Constitution suddenly demands no less than a permanent redefinition of marriage, regardless of the popular will….”
~From Justice Baxter’ opinion partially concurring and partially dissenting (p 132).
May 20th, 2008 at 9:29 am
Posted by: Michael Medved at 6:20 PM
The gay marriage decision by the California Supreme Court is based on deceptive rhetoric and deeply flawed logic. Chief Justice Ronald George wrote that “the right to marry represents the right of an individual to establish a legally recognized family with a person of one’s choice…” But if you choose a partner who’s underage, or already married to someone else, the state won’t sanction your marriage – because some relationships are more worthy of support than others. Individuals deserve equal rights– but relationships don’t merit equal treatment: the government rightly encourages some relationships above others. All individuals enjoy identical rights – to marry an unattached adult of the opposite sex. The fact that some citizens prefer same sex relationships doesn’t mean they possess fewer rights: in marriage, there’s no choice a straight individual can pursue that a gay individual can’t.
May 20th, 2008 at 9:32 am
Social policy cannot be made solely on the basis of eradicating all of life’s unfairness.
hmmm. I tend to agree with this statement…