First published in print: Wednesday, November 12, 2008
Why are civil rights for blacks decided by the Supreme Court, but civil rights for gays decided by popular vote?
If it were up to voters, several states might still prohibit blacks from getting married.
So how is it legal or fair for voters to decide if gays can marry?
I do not want a ceremony, I want my "partner" to receive my Social Security if I die.
My parents were married for 25 years, and divorced 29 years; when my father died, my mother's Social Security increased. My partner and I have been together for 31 years, and if I die, he gets nothing. That is not equal treatment, and it is not fair.
Not ALL gay rights are decided by the courts. In fact, the California voters overturned their court system this November. Also, the Connecticut Supreme Court voted in favor of Skip today.
(AP) – In a brief hearing this morning, a Connecticut judge cleared the way for same-sex couples to start getting married today, the AP reports. Licenses will be available to gay and lesbian couples at town and city clerks' offices statewide, in the wake of the state supreme court's ruling Oct. 10 giving them the same rights as other couples. Many gay and lesbian couples are planning ceremonies today.
I think that what this person was saying is that since the courts actually did pass a law making same sex marraige legal, why did it have to go to a popular vote and overturn the law? Why didn't the court's passage of this law stay?
When the INSANE are running the ASYLUM In individuals, insanity is rare; but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule. -- Friedrich Nietzsche
“How fortunate for those in power that people never think.” Adolph Hitler
why did it have to go to a popular vote and overturn the law? Why didn't the court's passage of this law stay?
Because of the old Checks and Balances. The court system should not, and has no right to be, writing laws. That's why there's a legislature. They write the law, then the higher power (Governor, President) have to approve the law, veto it, or have it overridden by a supermajority. The only thing that the court is supposed to do is to prosecute the laws and to advise if the law is unconstitutional.
Courts cant write law.....they just 'weigh it'.....you know counterweigh it against the constitution......so everytime there is a change to the constitution it changes the 'weight'.....think of old fashioned scales like in some MD offices...with counterbalances......unjust scales are the worst... just ask any dieter....
...you are a product of your environment, your environment is a product of your priorities, your priorities are a product of you......
The replacement of morality and conscience with law produces a deadly paradox.
STOP BEING GOOD DEMOCRATS---STOP BEING GOOD REPUBLICANS--START BEING GOOD AMERICANS
You're quite correct. Courts, particularly at the lower levels, have no part in the law-making process. However, as Lincoln said, "The best way to get rid of a bad law is to enforce it vigorously." By doing so it becomes a matter of time before such a law is elevated through the court system to a level where it can be struck down. Here in New York, for state laws that level would be the state's highest court; the court of appeals. If it's an onerous enough law, and satisfaction can't be achieved at this level, then it may be heard by the US Supreme Court, or it may not. Striking down a statute at any level is often rewarded with accusations of, "legislating from the bench," and in fact the higher courts are often maligned for this and other situations.
The classic example here relates to the attempt by the Clinton administration to have the FDA regulate tobacco. That industry got the situation raised to the Supreme Court in nearly record time, and the day after their decision the headlines read, "Supreme Court denies FDA the right to regulate tobacco." That's not at all what really happened. The SC examined the FDA charter which clearly limits the FDA to regulation of 'controlled substances' only. The FDA has no authority in determining which items are on the 'controlled substance' list, and tobacco wasn't on it. So, you might ask, who does have the power to put tobacco on that list? The answer is, 'congress.' That's the bunch that schmoozes with the tobacco industry to the point where it's still not on that list. However, it was the SC that took all the heat, and not the congress critters - who should have.
The next issue is having certain legislation put up for popular vote. It's a good, but cumbersome concept. The ancient Greeks proved that a democracy simply can't work - it's too cumbersome to require that all the people vote on each and every issue. It grates my nerves to hear our elected officials claim that we live in a 'democracy' and are spreading that around the earth. We live in a 'republic;' a 'democratic-republic' as our founding fathers called it, and that condition is well removed from a true democracy.
For 'why' some things should not be voted on, refer to Oliver Wendell Holmes, who is at times called, 'the greatest jurist.' He spoke of the, 'tyranny of the majority.' While he may not have coined the term, he used it both directly and indirectly. Once asked which of the 'rights' he believed was most important, he replied, "Civilized man's greatest right is the right to be left alone." In voting over issues relating to minorities, particularly unpopular ones, that 'tyranny' would almost invariably kick in. For examples, one only has to look at the southern states to see how, for nearly ninety years, they enacted truly tyrannical laws, not a few of which were put before the people to vote on.
A great deal of the time, when someone wants an issue 'put on the ballot,' it is either because they know that the above tyranny will swing in their favor, or because they have the money to finance a campaign (like the one that voted down our constitutional convention a few years back). The truth is that most of those who scream the loudest for a 'vote' on things pay little attention to, and have less knowledge of, when they should have been given a vote, or were, but had no idea what they were voting on, like our constitutional convention. An example that the late Ron Sontag made me aware of was that every time government creates a committee or an agency, they are bypassing the electorate. The fun begins when those elected officials, like say our county legislature, get to say, "Not my fault - take that up with Metroplex!"
Among a whole list of things, gay rights should not be voted upon. This particular minority is hugely misunderstood, and appears an effrontery to 'the norm.' The life-style, particularly of men being attracted to men, is something I'll never truly understand - but wait! Hold it! I also don't understand, and for the exact same reasons, why women find men attractive! I'm eternally beholding that they do, and I don't get it.
JMHO----'the popular vote' also does harm to the sheeple going over the cliff......our boundaries of our civilized society are a mish-mash of our own morals and the morals of those we elect to assist in enforcing those boundaries, like the pasture fence........
when elected officials blame another committee/branch/party for their lack of discernment and impotence,,,,,it's usually because they refused to fight in the arena in which they were elected to 'fight'/debate/vote etc........
I ask WHY do they refuse to do that?---lobbyists/organized crime/selfishness/greed etc etc...........remember they are not elected from a vacuum....
or are they?
...you are a product of your environment, your environment is a product of your priorities, your priorities are a product of you......
The replacement of morality and conscience with law produces a deadly paradox.
STOP BEING GOOD DEMOCRATS---STOP BEING GOOD REPUBLICANS--START BEING GOOD AMERICANS
Logged
