Quote:
Originally Posted by UGAalum94
What misinformation was used in California? I didn't pay that much attention until after the vote.
|
When I get more time, I'll link some of the commercials on YouTube - essentially it was public fear-mongering, including the implication that the wording of the law would prevent churches from doing church-like things, or require them to participate in things they weren't comfortable doing, or that it would lead to disastrous implications in things like educational planning. Very bizarre stuff, only loosely tied to an insane reading of the law as written.
Quote:
Originally Posted by UGAalum94
ETA: I think civil unions for everyone makes a lot of sense. But I was never really bothered by the idea of gay marriage either. Judges finding new applications of civil rights in documents that previously weren't thought to contain them and that go against both tradition and the opinion of the majority is unsettling however. While I agree that the outcomes of such actions previously generally yielded outcomes, like integration of schools, that I view as necessary and positive, other issues like abortion are less clear cut. I don't think courts being out in front on this is a good thing. While the political parties can get a lot of mileage out of this wedge issue, I don't think that it's good for the rest of us.
|
I don't see the Court as "out in front" on anything here, because the Court's job is to determine matters of law, not matters of opinion or societal drift. Here, it's pretty basic that homosexuality is a covered class, and that banning marriage by a protected class violates the plain language of the law.
For me, the Court is the body that doesn't have to pay attention to polls or society's development or leanings - it has the text plus common sense plus precedent/implication to inform itself. There's an entirely different body meant to be responsive to the whims of the population: the legislature, who can decide that 30-some% of Iowans (the number who actively oppose gay marriage in all forms) should carry the day, and as such, the law should be changed accordingly.
Remember too that the law is organic - it is a living document, and new challenges and applications will arise all of the time. Interpreting how laws interact with these new challenges is one of the very basic duties of the judicial branch. Maybe the Iowa civil rights laws weren't passed with homosexuality in mind, but under the definitions used, homosexuality fits, so there's no choice but to make a determination of law, regardless of the popularity of the interpretation. Without a single dissent, this one seems less like activism and more like common sense.
Threaded Mode
