Proposition 8 deals with an issue that tends to bring out lots of emotion when it is discussed.¬†¬†So I will try¬†to leave all the emotion out of this blog, and just give you the cut-and-dry facts of what today's ruling was and what it means.
Today, by a vote of 6-1, the California Supreme Court, the same group who declared same-sex "marriage" legal less than one year ago,¬†upheld the people's vote¬†on Proposition 8 from last November.¬†¬†That begs the question, how can the CSC¬†take one side last year, and then the¬†other side this year?¬† It's actually a little more complicated than that.¬† Remember, judges can't just come out and make or change laws simply¬†because they feel a certain way about a certain issue.¬†¬†They're judges after all, not legislators.¬† In today's decision, what the CSC was doing was simply ruling on whether or not Proposition 8 is legal and constitutional.¬†¬†Proposition¬†8, when passed by the voters of California,¬†amended the state¬†constitution to say that marriage is between a man and a woman, which negated the CSC's controversial ruling from last year which temporarily opened the doors to same-sex "marriage."¬†¬†The chief justice of the CSC today reminded everyone by saying¬†that "all political¬†power is inherent in the people," and that voters were within their rights to pass the amendment in November.¬† He went on to say that "same-sex couples continue to enjoy the same substantive core benefits ... as those enjoyed by opposite-sex couples, including the constitutional right to enter into an officially recognized and protected family relationship with the person of one's choice and to raise children."¬† Wait a minute, did he just say opposite-sex couples?¬† Has he been listening to Miss California?¬† Haha!¬† Anyway, the¬†same-sex "marriages"¬†that were performed during the few months that they were legal in California will remain valid.
Regardless of the issue,¬†and this certainly is a divisive one, it is comforting to hear from a group of judges that a democracy is run by the PEOPLE, and not by the JUDGES themselves (especially since they are generally appointed and not elected).¬† Quite often judges go against the will of the people in a variety of issues,¬†far overstepping their constitutional boundaries.¬† Some call it "legislating from the bench," which is not the role of judges.¬† We elect congressmen (not judges) to write our laws, and then can hold them accountable by voting them out the next time if we don't like the laws they were writing.¬† Don't ever forget that the¬†US Constitution begins with the words "We the people," which means government doesn't run our lives, WE run the government.¬†¬†That distinction doesn't seem to be well remembered here in the 21st century.¬†
So if you¬†agree with Prop. 8, you were encouraged today to hear the CSC doing their job today, and not overstepping their boundaries by trying to go against the will of the people.¬† If you disagree with Prop.¬†8, you need not be angry with the CSC, but should¬†know that your disagreement is with the people of California.¬†¬†How both sides handle the victory or defeat of their cause will be interesting to watch.
Hi all-While I am very much a part of the Christian religion, I believe that marriage should be kept between a man and a woman, because that is the way God inteded it to be. However, I do not have anything against gay people, they are free to love who they want, but as far as marriage goes it was meant to be between a man and a woman. I always think of this saying....I am not judgemental but it always comes to mind......God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve!...