But true to his campaign, he rejects calls for a Federal amendment to deal with this issue--his preference is for this to be handled at the State level, as Federalism requires.
His real call here is for the appointment of more justices that will interpret law rather than legislate:
So, more power to the people of California in their uphill battle for an amendment to their state constitution. But the real, long-term solution in the future for supporters of the rule of law is ensuring the selection and election of good judges, judges who know their role in a constitutional republic, in the first place, and holding them – and the politicians who appoint and confirm them – accountable.
2 comments:
When the Massachusetts State Supreme Court ruled to legalize gay marriage in 2003. The towns & cities were given a few months until May17, 2004 when gay marriage would go into effect. Of course Romney & his cronies tried everything to stop it but failed. Even after gay marriages were performed they tried to get an amendment on to the ballot until June 14th, 2007 when it was finally defeated in the State House. For those who are still uncomfortable with this check out our short produced to educate & defuse the controversy. It has a way of opening closed minds & provides some sanity on the issue: www.OUTTAKEonline.com
I am actually fairly neutral on whether or not gay marriage would be a good or a bad thing. What I am completely opposed to is any court requiring gay marriage. Setting policy is the job of legislatures and not the judiciary. The Massachusetts and California decisions are just plain bad decisions. Groups like Outtake are more than welcome to lobby for changes in laws.
Post a Comment