California, New Hampshire, and the Gay Marriage Express
May 27, 2009 5 Comments
As I have stated in previous posts, the only way to legalize same-sex marriage is through the people or the legislature. States who use the court’s opinion to magically make law know darn well that it is the only way they will get same-sex marriage because their people nor their legislatures will pass it. Two states have recently failed, both legally and illegally, to get same-sex marriage a law.
Gay marriage advocates were hoping that the California Supreme Court would again give a do-over on the same-sex marriage ban that was passed by the people. No such luck this time. Perhaps those judges have finally realized that they do not make law. That is why their decision to let the 18,000 gay couples who wed between their first decision and Proposition 8 is so ludicrous. Same-sex marriage was never the law in the first place so why was there even a discussion whether or not to let them stay “wed?”
The next state who tried to pass gay marriage was New Hampshire. I’ll give this state credit because it was trying to implement this law according to the Constitution, but the Governor threw a road block out when he promised to veto the bill if it didn’t contain language that protected churches who refused to wed homosexuals due to religious beliefs from lawsuits. The bill should have easily passed the Democratic House, but it did not. Why? Because they hate the thought of protecting the freedom of religion and speech so much that they voted down their own bill because of that language. An openly gay senator led in opposing the bill. So much for only wanting equal rights and tolerance.
I want the people of Iowa to get to vote on this here.Let our voices be heard. We Have a right to speak our mind and opinion and this issue should be on the ballot. Thanks to our gutless governor who accepted campaign money from known gay rights groups. Sell out Culver needs thrown out.
You could prevent the Gov from being indebted to gay groups if you could get him to endorse public financing for all campaigns. No more money from gays or unions. You like that idea? Me, too.
I support Marriage between a man and woman, but I disagree with you on how to decide.
This is what Judges do, this should not be put up for Public vote. Can you imagine if in the 60′s southern states got to decide on legalizing interracial marriage? Or even equal voting rights or ending segregation? We would still have a segregated south.
Adam,
If we let judges decide, slavery would have gone on a lot longer due to the Dredd Scott decision but Lincoln put an end to that court ruling later on. As far as segregation goes, the courts didn’t need to step in and ban it. As with slavery, a Constitutional Amendment could have been passed at the federal level in order to ban segregation after the courts gave their opinion because it would be classified as a civil rights issue. (That’s how checks and balances work.) Our founding fathers set up the three branch system with the judicial branch being the weakest. It took one judge (Marbury v. Madison) to decide he could give himself power outside of the Constitution and that is where people think precendence is set. “Judicial Review” isn’t even in the Constitution.
I see where you are coming from but if we allow judges to be the final law of the land we might as well say goodbye to our republic and burn the Constitution because it says that the final law is the will of the people.
Hmmm, I wonder why the Congress didn’t pass a constitutional amendment after Marbury v. Madison stripping out judicial review from the jurisdiction of the courts. Why don’t we do that now? No one even suggests such a thing.