The Ojai Post

Nice profile of the Republican Chief Justice who wrote the majority opinion on the case in Sunday's LA Times. The article has already generated over 2800 comments (no time to read that!).

This is one of those landmark cases where we will look back in 50 years and say thank you - certainly a forward thinking decision when compared to public opinion.

Read the court opinion, apparently it is one of the best written and very thoughtful.

I for one don't care if gay folk want to marry. But didn't the California voters decide they didn't want to legalize gay marraige? Seems to me the judges should not be able to overturn a decision the public lawfully voted on.

Bill,
One of the reasons that we have the high court is to protect the minority from majority votes that discriminate. It was at the high court, and not the ballot box, where every significant civil right has been won. Spiro Agnew used to rant about the rights of the silent majority. In a democracy, they don’t need rights…they are the majority. All Americans have a right to the same privileges and protection under the law, whether they are male, female, white, black, brown, old, young, gay or straight. Such issues cannot logically be decided at the ballot box.

Well said, Dennis.

Soon, voters may have another opportunity to vote against gay marriage. In November, there will be an initiative on the ballot restricting the civil right of marriage to a man and a woman.

Denying the civil right of marriage to committed adults above the age of consent because their genders don't match the picture of Adam and Eve is denying a civil right to one group of people because of another group's religious beliefs. This legislation has never required any particular church or religious organization to recognize a state-sanctioned marriage of any kind. What it does is allow loving couples visitation rights in hospitals, next-of-kin rights, adoption rights, and the privilege of filing taxes together.

Now is the time for anyone who says "I don't have any problem with gay marriage" to "come out of the closet" and support equal human rights in California. This is a time when your voice will matter when you share your opinion with your neighbors and friends who might not have thought about it this way.

Democracy protects us from all having to live by the values of one religious group. We seem to see that as a problem in the middle east but we don't seem to recognize that the gay marriage debate is the same wolf looking like a different colored sheep.

I love you Evan

Dennis and Heather, you're brilliant and i appreciate you!
Love, i love you too...generally speaking. :)

Then why have a vote if a group of judges can create a society according to their wishes. I was under the impression that in America, majority rules. Heathers comment is interesting, in that she would have us believe that every citizen who doesn't vote for gay marraige is of the same religion.

“Then why have a vote if a group of judges can create a society according to their wishes.”

Firstly, the Supreme Court is there to be certain that the majority does not distort the intent of the Constitution, not to create a society according to their wishes. Otherwise, we would all be at the mercy of the majority in every case. Blacks would still be enslaved; women would not vote and we would all be subject to serve the popular religion of the land. Interracial marriage would be out of the question; segregated schools, a mere fantasy; the right to express divergent opinions form the majority would be illegal; due process would be a joke.
Our Founders had the wisdom to protect human life and freedom by making the individual sovereign. They held that each individual has an objective right to his own life and his own happiness -- including the right to his property, without which no other rights are possible. They held that individual rights are inalienable, that is, that no force on earth -- no monarch, no parliament, no mob or legislative majority -- could rightfully violate them.

In a democracy, the majority rule is not a license for oppression.

Dennis, I so appreciate your intelligence! Thank you for these most thoughtful, insightful comments!

Dennis - you ROCK. Thank you for being so thoughtful and clear responding to the questions.

Yes, Dennis, excellent encapsulation of the judicial role in the system of checks and balances.

Anonymous, I think it's unfair to say that judges render decisions "according to their wishes." On the contrary, when the democratic system is working right, they rise to their judgeships on their proven merits as constitutional scholars and their ability to think objectively, to allow reason to rule over both passion and personal preference. Yes, they also are expected to consider the current values and mores of the majority society in interpreting the intentions of the Founding Fathers, but not, as Dennis pointed out, at the expense of individual civil rights.

Some folks are speaking of a Supreme Court that used to be. The current crop of far-right judicial activists are indeed intent on remaking society according to their views, or those of their patrons. Constitution, Congress, majorities and minorities be damned.

That's the federal Supreme Court, not the state. Our California Supreme Court is largely conservative, but in a sense that is willing to respect the Constitution and their role.

Before we wax too poetic on the performance and role of our courts, read any number of the 5-4 "opinions" coming from the U.S. Supreme Court in the last few years. You will be hard pressed to find any principles of judicial construction being enunciated, much less vindicated.

Bush v Gore, anyone?

Darn. Just when I thought the point was made, someone brings up Bus v. Gore. Touche. It ain't a perfect system, but, over time, it may be the best there has ever been.

Anonymous,

I think it is fair to say that the vocal majority opposing and mobilizing against gay marriage come from the Christian right. Do you disagree?

I don't think I've ever heard anyone say "far-right judicial activists." How refreshing! Usually that phrase is reserved for the left-wing.