::deep breath::
Right, so I know this probably isn't going to go over well, but since everyone is putting up "omg go to hell california supreme court you make me ashamed of my state" posts everywhere I thought a little diversity would be good.
Our problem is NOT with our state supreme court. Don't forget that this is the same group of people who ruled that same-sex couples share the same "fundamental right to marry" as heterosexual couples - the same group who made this whole debate possible. They are not standing up and saying that they believe gay couples should be deprived of rights. They are saying that within the structure of the California government, Prop 8 is constitutionally valid - within the Californian constitution, which is the one they are sworn to abide by.
You could argue that they should have ruled according to their higher moral standards rather than to support the legal system, but that argument could go in all kinds of ugly directions. The legal argument against Prop 8 within our state is flimsy, while the broader constitutional argument is far stronger*. The ruling was a legal and not a moral decision. The fact is, the way the Californian government is set up makes it possible for a simple majority vote to change our state constitution in a way that undermines civil liberties. Our problem isn't with our supreme court justices, it's with a legislative system that allows for things like this to happen.
It's a sad state of affairs that our state's legislative system allows such an ugly mark to soil our constitution. Everything that has happened is completely legal, which goes to prove that the law might not always be on our side. But there is a process to these things, whether we like it or not, and our justices are sworn to uphold the law and not their personal opinions. (If you read some of their comments regarding the ruling, it's clear that there are a few of them who deeply regret the whole situation, and that they remain hopeful that it will be overturned in a future election.) Unfortunately putting prop 8 to a popular vote and having it win is the most difficult thing for us to undo, and the only way to do it is through another popular vote.
I guess my underlying point is, we have a legal system that does allow for changes and flexibility, and we just saw one of the worst ways it can evolve. We have a right to be angry, and we should be. I plan on jumping right back down into the trenches with the rest of you on this one. But be clear on who you're angry at, know why you're angry, and know what needs to be done to correct this horrible mistake.
*I personally am inspired by the Iowa Supreme Court's decision. If you read the text of the ruling, it lines up every classic argument against gay marriage and knocks them all down in a gloriously systematic way. Remember that the only difference between Iowa and California on this count is the easy with which (read: majority versus 60%) a popular vote can alter the constitution. Aside from that, the situations are the same.
Our problem is NOT with our state supreme court. Don't forget that this is the same group of people who ruled that same-sex couples share the same "fundamental right to marry" as heterosexual couples - the same group who made this whole debate possible. They are not standing up and saying that they believe gay couples should be deprived of rights. They are saying that within the structure of the California government, Prop 8 is constitutionally valid - within the Californian constitution, which is the one they are sworn to abide by.
You could argue that they should have ruled according to their higher moral standards rather than to support the legal system, but that argument could go in all kinds of ugly directions. The legal argument against Prop 8 within our state is flimsy, while the broader constitutional argument is far stronger*. The ruling was a legal and not a moral decision. The fact is, the way the Californian government is set up makes it possible for a simple majority vote to change our state constitution in a way that undermines civil liberties. Our problem isn't with our supreme court justices, it's with a legislative system that allows for things like this to happen.
It's a sad state of affairs that our state's legislative system allows such an ugly mark to soil our constitution. Everything that has happened is completely legal, which goes to prove that the law might not always be on our side. But there is a process to these things, whether we like it or not, and our justices are sworn to uphold the law and not their personal opinions. (If you read some of their comments regarding the ruling, it's clear that there are a few of them who deeply regret the whole situation, and that they remain hopeful that it will be overturned in a future election.) Unfortunately putting prop 8 to a popular vote and having it win is the most difficult thing for us to undo, and the only way to do it is through another popular vote.
I guess my underlying point is, we have a legal system that does allow for changes and flexibility, and we just saw one of the worst ways it can evolve. We have a right to be angry, and we should be. I plan on jumping right back down into the trenches with the rest of you on this one. But be clear on who you're angry at, know why you're angry, and know what needs to be done to correct this horrible mistake.
*I personally am inspired by the Iowa Supreme Court's decision. If you read the text of the ruling, it lines up every classic argument against gay marriage and knocks them all down in a gloriously systematic way. Remember that the only difference between Iowa and California on this count is the easy with which (read: majority versus 60%) a popular vote can alter the constitution. Aside from that, the situations are the same.