The American Spectator

/p>

So the California Supreme Court has — for no apparent reason other than that they felt like it — declared that the institution of marriage as it has been understood by virtually every society in human history is in violation of California’s constitution.

Oh, and pigs shall fly.

The court’s ruling betrays either a) a woeful lack of any understanding of the role of marriage in society, or b) rank judicial activism. They simply imposed their values on 30 million Californians, the large majority of whom thought we had settled this in 2000.

For me, Antle’s money quote was: “(M)arriage exists not to give some kind of Good Housekeeping seal of approval to various romantic couplings but in recognition of the biological fact that sex between men and women often results in children.” If it weren’t for the presumption that the relationship between a man and woman will produce children, what compelling interest does the government have in insinuating itself in the private relationships of its citizens?

p>Using the court’s logic as a guide, a reasonable person could then ask, “Why does the FAA deny airworthiness certification to pigs?” Answer: because that case isn’t due before the California Supreme Court until October. br> — Pete Chase br> San Diego, California /p>

Voters in California unambiguously made their choice when they overwhelmingly approved Proposition 22 and supported the domestic partnership guidelines passed by their state legislature. Apparently, following the democratic process upon which our nation was founded is not enough to secure that the will of the majority be followed in this case. Four unaccountable jurists, in a brazen display of arrogance, freely and deliberately set aside the desire of the people because it did not conform to their enlightened rendering of the state’s governing document. Is this what now passes for “government of the people, by the people, for the people” in California? Perhaps the language in the state constitution needs to be amended to read “Herewith, all decisions of the citizens of the state are final, except in those instances where the majority of the panel of imperial potentates comprising the Supreme Court does not agree.”

Judicial overreach is nothing new, especially when the issue of same-sex marriage is at the fulcrum of the debate. Since no language exists in the federal and in few, if any, state constitution explicitly defining what constitutes a marriage relationship (prior to a few years ago, there was no need for such a clarification), judges feel emboldened to embark on fishing expeditions to find something in the text that they can pervert to justify their non-traditional inclinations. These excursions, which invariably match the goals and agenda of some strident and vocal minority they are sympathetic to, lead to court verdicts bereft of any justification other than the personal preference of a bare majority of the judicial panel. As I have noted in the past, Thomas Jefferson’s warning has been validated here: “[T]o consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy….The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal.”

p>The question now is: Do the people of California and their elected officials have the backbone to stand up to their renegade court and place the restoration of authority for making constitutional decisions where it belongs — with the people? Californians have already made their voice heard once. Now, they must stare down these bullies in black robes in order to enforce the freedoms they mistakenly thought were guaranteed by the same document these rogue judges have manipulated for their own political purposes. br> — Rick Arand