The citizens of California voted for and passed a ban last year on gay marriage. The fight went all the way to the California Supreme Court. The court sided with the citizens vote to ban gay marriage. I have not read the official opinion, but the corporate news is saying the decision asked one question, Do the citizens of california have the right to ammend their constitution (which they did last year by banning gay marriage),the court ruled YES they do have the right.
But hold on a second. Shouldnt the court have asked a different question. The role of the court system is to measure the constitutionality of laws passed. For example if california passed a law saying only whites could vote next year the court would rule if this law was legal, or if it violates others rights, granted in the constitution. So far it seems the California Supreme Court sidestepped this issue completely. Why didnt they make a ruling on the question, Was the law passed last year to ban gay marriages in california, does this law infringe on citizens rights.
Right now the way they ruled, "yes , california citizens have the right to ammend their constitiution", means, to me, that any ammendment is automatically legal. Stealing on wednesday's is legal. Attacking people who look different than you is now legal. Kidnapping those who angered you only for a few days is legal. How far can we take this?
Ruling yes, they have the right to ammend the constitution completely sidesteps the entire role of the judicial system by not ruling on the constitutionality of the issue that is in disagreement.
But than again maybe the courts are just trying to live up to the example the congress has set, of sidestepping its role by giving up its right to declare war to the president, by giving up its right to coin money to the FED, by giving up its power of the purse to treasury (to fix this financial mess), and by giving up its power of oversight, by not having any.
What roles have you sidestepped today?
Reading into the official supreme court opinion the justice's did not rule on the constitutionality of the ammendment because they said they already ruled last year that same sex unions would enjoy all the same rights under the law and that this new ammendment would not alter any previous opinion, it would only. take out the word"marriage". And any changes to California's constitution to the definition of marriage would be left to the legislature not the courts.