Patrick Gryph — thank you, finally someone with some sanity posting here. From reading these comments, I’m not sure conservatives even know what judicial review is for anymore. The courts decide whether a law is constitutional or not. This is just about the only check and balance on the initiative system we have in California. If the legislature or the people pass a law that’s unconstitutional, it’s not “judicial activism” to overturn it, it’s doing their jobs.
A couple of other brief points:
1. Six of the seven CA Supreme Court justices were Republican appointees.
2. The statement “the historical understanding of marriage as a union between one man and one woman goes back for millennia” is demonstrably false. Polygamy has a long history around the world and is still practiced legally in some places.
3. Commenter NB: This was not a Federal court. It was the California Supreme Court.
4. Commenter dre: So heterosexual unions that don’t produce children aren’t valid? Now *that’s* making up new laws.
5. Commenter Stargazer: The CA Supreme Court justices are not “life-tenured.” They’re appointed, but then the voters get to vote to retain them or not. Occasionally they do get booted.
So, between now and November, many California couple will marry, and on November, the so-called pro-family faction will have a measure on the ballot that will directly break up families. I hope they’re proud of themselves. I’m going to relish seeing conservatives try to contain themselves if their ballot measure fails; they won’t have any legal arguments left.
