March 15, 2005
Judicial Tyranny versus the Tyranny of the Majority
from - smijer
This judge's ruling has nothing to do with enforcing the Constitution and everything to do with rule by fiat. Those who want gay marriage should win that right by changing the law - not the imposition of the will of activist judges. What happened yesterday is an egregious and shameful act of piracy. Make no mistake - the Left is engaging in a coup through the use of judicial dictators. The Left cannot advance their agenda by appealing to the people of the United States, so they are going to impose it by force through activist judges.- This is from one of the RTB's newer members, Jeff Blogworthy (welcome, dude.. I'm not trying to pick on you... you just happened to be using some language that's been floating around in conservative circles, and that's what caught my eye)
I would ask Jeff, or others who complain of "judicial tyranny,": Upon whom, exactly, is this judge imposing his will by force? Who are the victims of his dictatorial tyranny?
Jeff cites the percentages by which the anti-Family proposition 22 passed:
Proposition 22 was ratified by an overwhelming majority of California voters, prevailing by a 23-point margin. Statewide, 4,618,673 votes were cast in favor of the proposition, comprising 61.4% of the total vote. Opponents garnered 2,909,370 votes, for 38.6% of the vote.
Again, I ask... how many of the people voting for the anti-family law are going to actually be affected by it? My guess is virtually none. Of those whom the law blocks from marriage, I would guess that there was near unanimous opposition ot the law.
Now, when the majority of people vote for a law or a political system that only effects the minority, and the minority who are affected oppose that law, that's what I think DeTocqueville had in mind when he talked about the tyranny of the majority.
It's unfortunate that the majority of people so despise their countrymen who are gay that they are willing to deprive them of access to the same institutions they demand access to for themselves, even though it harms them none to do so. Perhaps if they gave as much attention to the Golden Rule as they do to the Ten Commandments, things would be different.
::Posted by smijer at March 15, 2005 01:04 PM
Actually, as someone who supports gay marriage and opposes the death penalty, this ruling and the SCOTUS overturning capital punishment of juveniles are crap rulings. They really are.
|
Posted by SayUncle on March 15, 2005 01:37 PM Link to comment |
Regarding the death penalty, current 'standards' don't matter. What is in the law matters. Is the punishment cruel? Yes. Unusual? No. Hence, it is not cruel and unusual.
To my knowledge, the state has the right to regulate marriage (though I don't think a contract between two people should be the state's business, it is codified into law) for a variety of reasons.
|
|
Posted by SayUncle on March 15, 2005 02:36 PM Link to comment |
Unusual? No.
I think the justices agreed with the argument that the death penalty for people who were minors when the crime was committed is unusual, both in the U.S., and worldwide...
To my knowledge, the state has the right to regulate marriage (though I don't think a contract between two people should be the state's business, it is codified into law) for a variety of reasons.
Does it have the right to regulate marriage in a way that does not ensure equal protection under the law? The U.S. and the CA constitution both say that the state cannot regulate anything without providing for equal protection. Why, then, marriage?
BTW, I'd say that civil marriage is more than a contract between two people - I would say it is more a contract between two people and the state, just as religious marriage is a contract between two people and a church.
|
|
Posted by smijer on March 15, 2005 02:43 PM Link to comment |
To my knowledge, the state has the right to regulate marriage (though I don't think a contract between two people should be the state's business, it is codified into law) for a variety of reasons.
Your knowledge is wrong, as is your understanding of the Constitution and the Judicial system.
And, of course, that particular reasoning means the Court was also wrong when it forced every state to allow interracial marriages.
What is it with conservatives where they think there are only two branches of government?
|
|
Posted by Morat on March 15, 2005 04:52 PM Link to comment |
And how is my knowledge wrong? I mean, amendment 10 leaves stuff to the states or the people.
|
|
Posted by SayUncle on March 16, 2005 11:39 AM Link to comment |
1) Fing Blogger won't let me do anything today.
2) We've got this quaint little Constitution that Republicans want to ignore.
3) The Judiciary has as much power as the Congress or the Executive. Deal with it.
4) there is no rational argument against gay marriage. The only arguments I've heard have their birthplace in bigotry.
|
|
Posted by Screwy Hoolie on March 16, 2005 01:58 PM Link to comment |
