With the ink on the California Supreme Court decision overturning the ban on gay marriage barely dry, the opponents are making some interesting points and somewhat surprisingly are getting support from the gay community! While it is true that politics makes for interesting bed fellow, in this case it might also make for an interesting crossing of the aisles that was not anticipated.
At issue is the fact that the court, which is constitutionally charged with the interpretation of laws via the separation of powers clause, appears to have delved into the law making realm with the 05-15-08 court decision. Although proponents argue that it was for the greater good, opponents see a trend that needs stopping in infancy since a growing tide will be hard to stem.
While same sex marriage has been a hot button issue for a long time already, the method with which it was instituted is sure to provide fodder for even more time! Even several gay activists are eyeing the California Supreme Court with suspicion, especially when considering that the overreach in power has become synonymous with California’s liberal courts.
At the heart of the matter is the election taking place back in the year 2000 when California voters overwhelmingly favored a definition of marriage as being an institution taking place between one man and one woman. Known as Proposition 22, this ballot measure was the bona fide methodology of law making all could agree on.
Unfortunately rogue San Francisco mayor Gavin Newsom decided in 2005 to disregard his duties of enforcing the laws and illegally sanctioned same sex marriages. When they were promptly stopped, several couples and special interest organizations sued and before long the court case wound its way through the court system and finally made it to the appellate level.
Perhaps the most attention by proponents and opponents of gay marriage must pay to the fact that the court is willing to state in its decision that this kind of legislation is up to the courts to determine and not up to the voter to decide on. A most egregious statement even at face value, it might be nice if you are on the side of the argument that profits from the court decision, but if you remember that the tide can turn just as quickly with the appointment of differently thinking officials in black robes, you may end up finding yourself on the losing end of the debate rather quickly.
Violating the separation of powers for the sake of political expediency and correctness is a worrisome development indeed.