For the record, no where (if so, show me) in the U S Constitution is there a stated right of Homosexuals being able to enter into marriage that is sanctioned by the State. Just as there is no where in the same Constitution stating that a woman has the right to end the life of a unborn child within her womb. The U S Constitution is not that difficult to understand or comprehend. It is wrong and has been wrong for quite some time for Judges to make law and/or void laws based on their personal and/or political beliefs. That is what the ability to "AMEND" the U S Constitution is for. Anyway, I doubt that we will or could agree on this it seems. But we do have the right to agree to disagree.
"... nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
Proposition 8 deprived persons within California's jurisdiction equal protection of the law. Under it, a man could marry a woman; a woman did not have the same right. Thus, it enacted illegal discrimination on the basis of gender.
No, you don't understand. The Constitution isn't 3496725672987 pages long, outlining every possible scenario people might want to make laws about, so obviously we can make laws about anything we desire. IT'S SO SIMPLE OKAY.
You are free to disagree on the issue (though of course coming into someone's personal journal and making bigoted comments will not generally open a meaningful debate) but your statement that the judge had no right to make the ruling is just incorrect.
The US legal system has its roots in the system of English common law, where making law is part of the proper function of judges. The Constitution has open-ended language like “No state shall... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws” because the folks who drafted it expected judges to exercise, well, judgement.
It’s not the only way to run a legal system, but it’s the one we have. If you want a country where every fine detail of the law is controlled by precisely worded statutes and judges have no discretion to do anything, move to France.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
Re: "For today, at least, we win. May it be so every day until the battle is over"
Date: 2010-08-04 10:03 pm (UTC)Re: "For today, at least, we win. May it be so every day until the battle is over"
Date: 2010-08-04 10:16 pm (UTC)Errr..have you actually read it?
Re: "For today, at least, we win. May it be so every day until the battle is over"
Date: 2010-08-04 10:17 pm (UTC)The judicial branch does not make law. It interprets it. I learned that in elementary school.
Re: "For today, at least, we win. May it be so every day until the battle is over"
Date: 2010-08-04 10:27 pm (UTC)Proposition 8 deprived persons within California's jurisdiction equal protection of the law. Under it, a man could marry a woman; a woman did not have the same right. Thus, it enacted illegal discrimination on the basis of gender.
Re: "For today, at least, we win. May it be so every day until the battle is over"
Date: 2010-08-05 02:15 am (UTC)Re: "For today, at least, we win. May it be so every day until the battle is over"
Date: 2010-08-04 10:50 pm (UTC)Re: "For today, at least, we win. May it be so every day until the battle is over"
Date: 2010-08-05 01:09 am (UTC)It’s not the only way to run a legal system, but it’s the one we have. If you want a country where every fine detail of the law is controlled by precisely worded statutes and judges have no discretion to do anything, move to France.