Let me be one more to say that this was the only correct decision to make under the law, but so was the Mass. decision. Neither court was legislating from the bench, merely interpreting the law.
I don’t think you’re going to get the outraged hypocrisy on this board that you were expecting, Bricker.
DtC: There actually were quite a few people on this board arguing that Newson was not only correct in performing the marriages, but that he was compelled to do so by the consitution. I’d expect those folks to have an issue with this ruling. I can dredge up the threads if you don’t remember.
the courts did not require massachusetts legislatures to recognize marriage at all. the constitution might require legislators not to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation with regards to issuing marriage licenses. that is not the same as saying the constitution requires the state to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.
i wholly agree that it is inadvisable to let the courts have too much power with regards to deciding legislative issues.
i don’t, however, see how this particular case reflects that notion. furthermore, i can’t tell whether or not you think this should be an issue for the courts to decide.
whether or not he was performing his constitutional duty remains to be decided. this case was about whether or not he broke a specific law. the issue of whether or not he behaved appropriately regarding the ca constitution won’t be decided until the court decides whether or not the law is in conflict with the constitution, if you accept that an executive is bound by duty to uphold the constitution above all other laws legislated.
He’ll find the outrage in my posts in this Pit thread, because I’m too angry for a debate right now. And no doubt he’ll be able to point out that it’s hypocritical.
I wasn’t one of those people and I don’t think I even read the threads on this particular. If people though the mayor was bound to do this by the California constitution, they were wrong, but that still doesn’t mean they were hypocritical unless they now say that this Court was legislating rather than interpreting existing law.
Personally, I never saw the mayor’s actions as anything but a symbolic act of civil disobedence. I fully expected this decision.
I also disagree with the rhetoric about the decsion in Massachusettes being an activist one rather than a legitimate ruling based on the state constitution.
And can’t the people still vote out legistlators who refuse to change the Constitution to what they want it to be? Can’t they still vote in legislators who will pledge to add an amendment outlawing gay marriage?
That option still exists. You’re being silly here.