Another Activist Judge Overrules the Will of the People

A federal Judge, appointed by Clinton, overruled the anti-gay marriage amendment which was approved by over 70% of the state population. When are these activist judges going to be stopped?

To quote RATM:
"We've got to take the power back."
"If we settle for nothing now, we'll settle for nothing later."

Now you may not agree with the anti-gay marriage movement, but, as an American, you should agree that Judges should not be overruling the will of the people. Sure, you may be happy about *this* ruling, but if this is allowed to continue, something *will* come up that you oppose and by then it may be too late.


-Kiamat Dusk
Power to the people...not the judges.

Ironic that you'd take a stand such as this, Kiamat, considering your family history and the history of marriage in this country.

Remember, were it not for a few 'radical' judges making 'liberal' decisions about marriage a few decades ago, well... would you be here typing away on the forums?

But, I digress, we've had this same conversation a few months ago, remember?

I remember. But I'm not convinced you're right. I think it was a Congressional thing vice a judicial thing, but I could be wrong. I did a quick internet search on the topic, but I'm coming up blank. I need to do some more in depth research.

-Kiamat Dusk

The judges do not answer directly to the will of the people. Their job is to interpret the law and find things constitutional/vice versa. So, in this particular judge's opinion, an anti-gay marriage amendment was unconstitutional.

Judges existed to interpret the law, not change them based on popularity contests. If we start removing judges for every unfavorable decision, then laws will favor the majority in power. As part of the non-Christian, mixed race minority, I would find that much scarier than "activist judges" making unfavorable decisions.

It was judicial, it actually started out here in 'liberal' CA with some 'activist' judges. I'll dig through and find the link to our last conversation on this where I pointed out the specifics to the ruling, etc.

Yay! There ARE still some sane judges in the U.S. Good to hear!

Kiamat, I found the links:

/120/44/42807/1.html

This is where we were talking about the roles of judges on issues like this and the 'Majority Rule and Minority Rights'. The judges, at times, must put aside the 'will' of the majority to ensure the rights of the minorities are not trampled, as they did in 1948 with the decision to declare the ban on interracial marriage a violation of our constitutional rights.

Basically, we're repeating 1948.

Adding this snippet in:
"Despite the public opposition to interracial marriage, in 1948, the California Supreme Court led the way in challenging racial discrimination in marriage and became the first state high court to declare unconstitutional a ban on interracial marriage. Perez v. Lippold, 32 Cal.2d 711 (194. The Court pointed out that races don't marry each other, people do. Restricting who can marry whom based on that characteristic alone was therefore race discrimination. The court decision was controversial, courageous and correct: at that time, 38 states still forbade interracial marriage, and 6 did so by state constitutional provision. "

Adding in one more tidbit:

It wasn't until 1967 that the U.S. Supreme Court finally struck down any and all remaining laws forbidding interracial marriage:

"In 1967, the United States Supreme Court struck down the remaining interracial marriage laws across the country and declared that the "freedom to marry" belongs to all Americans. Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 12 (1967). The Court described marriage as one of our "vital personal rights" which is "essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by a free people". "

You guys are missing the point...the judge shot down an AMENDMENT to the state Constitution as unconstistutional. They are *amending* it-ie changing it-to make it constitutional. Minority, majority-any way you slice it, the *people* make the laws via the *elected* legislature. This judge was not elected and does not answer to the people. If the people choose to change their amendment, then that should stand.

You guys are falling all over yourselves to condone this because you AGREE with the ruling. What if it had been the reverse? Say the voters had voted in FAVOR of gay marriage and some Bush Sr appointee overruled that? You would be losing your collective mind.


-Kiamat Dusk
Where are those Bush appointees when we need them?

Juro,

Got me there. Interracial marriage was a judicial thing vice a legislative one. However, I still disagree with activist judges and I still disagree with gay marriage.

-Kiamat Dusk

Power to the people, yes. But not at the expense of our constitution. These judges are *appointed* to prevent them from being tainted by public opinion and politics.

If Judges were bound to respect the will of the majority first, and the consitution second - I doubt that Jim Crow would be history today.

These judges are doing their job. If you don't like it, change the consitution. A judge that ignores our constitution, and bends to the will of the people - is the true activist judge.

We (U.S.) live in a constitutional democracy. That means that the authority of the majority is limited by legal and institutional means so that the rights of individuals and minorities are respected.

I'm pulling a semi hijack* here, but I'm curious. Why are you against gay marriage? Even if you think gay marriage (or being gay) is wrong, how does it affect you (or America)? Some people think it's an religious abomination to eat pork, but they aren't concerned if other people choose to eat it. What concequences do you fear if gays were legally allowed to marry?



*and it is a hijack, considering the original topic was about a judge's responsibility versus popular opinion

And the decision is legally sound. The Fourteenth Amendment to the FEDERAL Constitution overrules anything the states put in theirs. What exactly is the problem here?

Judges who insist on the constitutionality of all legislation, including constitutional amendments to state constituions, are being responsible guardians of the freedoms guaranteed by the US Constitution.

Its a fine safe guard against mob rule, and I'm all for it.

- Ace

Why? How can this possibly hurt you in any way?

- Ace

Yes, I would like to know too I have never met anyone personally who was against gay marriage.

Democracy is two wolves and a lamb deciding what's for lunch.
The Judges are the nnly thing keeping the lamb off the menu.

The rights of minorities should never be up for a vote. If they were, do you honestly think that anyone except stright, white, Christian males would have any rights at all in the United States?

Does the phrase "Protect the Minority from the tyranny of the Majority" mean anything to you?

It is your right to believe that people shouldn't marry someone of their own gender, just as it's your right to believe that people shouldn't eat pork, walk around with their heads uncovered, or marry people not of their own race.

If you believe any of these things, then you definitely shouldn't do those things.

But it is not your right to impose your beliefs on those who believe otherwise.

That is why, contrary to what you may have heard, this country was founded by a bunch of raving liberals as a secular democracy, not a theocracy.

Judges who interpret the laws as applying equally to all people are not "activist." They are simply doing their jobs.

In this case, the judge rightly ruled that the amendment did far more than declare marriage as an institution reserved for one man and one woman. In fact, the judge in question, U.S. District Judge Joseph Bataillon found that the amendment "creates a significant barrier to the plaintiffs' right to petition or to participate in the political process."

He went on to say the "broad proscriptions could also interfere with or prevent arrangements between potential adoptive or foster parents and children, related persons living together, and people sharing custody of children as well as gay individuals."

In other words, it was a bad, poorly written, amendment.

It only passed because a lot of people didn't do their homework, didn't thiink it through, and don't know much about the physiology of the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender population in the first place. (Yes, there are real physiological differences, in brain structure, chemical production, and other areas.)

Being gay is no more a choice than being of mixed race, and gay people deserve exactly the same right to marry the person they happen to fall in love with as anyone else.

Think it through. Sexual orientation cannot be changed. Gay people can't become straight, and straight people can't become gay. The total population of GLBT people is estimated at around 10%. That means, even if they were allowed to marry each other, and did so in the same proportion as their straight relatives, 90% of marriages will STILL be between one man and one woman.

It won't make the slightest bit of difference, except to the people who currently are married in every possible way except legally, and therefore are barred from the more than 1000 benefits of marraige in the US.

You don't have to change your mind. You shouldn't marry someone of your own gender, feeling as you do. But for pity's sake, leave the rest of us alone to live our lives as we see fit.

Robin (Sojoiurner) Wood

It took me a while to write the post above, and I missed all kinds of other posts while I did so.

So I just want to say a heartfelt "Thank you!" to all those who are defending the rights of a minority I happen to belong to.

I really appreciate it! You're all great.

Robin (Sojourner) Wood

Judges exist to balance politicians, to provide a longview grounded in personal wisdom and knowledge of history and the law, without concern for upcoming elections. They owe nothing to the "will of the people" in the moment--they serve justice and the rule of law over the long term.

The amendment in question did not stand up to the rigor of the law, period.

Looks to me as if that judge was going by precedent cases and the standard of the US Constitution as a guide. If he is being swayed by decisions of the Supreme Court, how can he be an activist? Most of the people in Germany voted for Hitler. Was that will of the people good? There. I mentioned Hitler, so maybe this foolishness will end. If you are looking for people to agree with you, perhaps the forums at the 700 Club website may be more comforting than these.
The will of the people is usually wrong.

I couldn't have said it better than did Robin, David and others. US governmental institutions are a series of (sometimes painfully slow and annoying) checks and balances that are intended to prevent tyrrany of the majority and/or of the minority. It's not a perfect system, but better than letting a grand poobah arbitrarily make all of the decisions.

Here we go again.


Actually, quite the reverse - this is an example of the "independant judiciary" doing precisely what it was put in place to do.

Popularity does not mean something is, has, or should happen - just as might doesn't make right. The judiciary is in place precisely to make unpopular decisions - just as Linden Labs attempts to make unpopular decisions here for the betterment of Second Life.

I also agree with Robin's assessment here. These laws fall into the wrong largely because they attempt to "legislate" basic human relations. Last I checked, this country's foundation is the U.S. Constitution, not the Bible. Everyone should be welcome to their opinion on matters like these, but when the majority attempts to legislate it, a line must be drawn.

In a similar vein, I support what happened with the Terry Schiavo case, as much as I feel she should have been granted a right to life at the time. Legislating someone's life is wrong.

As for the means, if not the judiciary, where should the line have been drawn?

ooh this should be interesting. I'd like to know as well. How is gay marriage hurting anyone?

We had a pretty thorough debate on this topic, recently.

/120/44/42807/1.html

It's considered a "sin" by many Christians - the more vehement of which feel they must "save" these people.

That's bled its way into politics.

Really, that's a very superficial take on the matter - but usually it's the defense.