Pictured - A tiki torch that has been built from an Ikea oil and vinegar set.
Meanwhile, in Proposition 8 news, reader Joshua sent me this comic:
(Original is here.) This is a good reminder that there's more to politics than Republicans vs. Democrats, and that you can't assume that someone's voting record tells you everything about them.
Of course, not everyone would agree that the judge in this case was a Libertarian. The Gay Patriot, for example, doesn't completely approve of this exercise of judicial power because it doesn't use the constitution enough, but simply pushes the ideology of the judge into our lives.
But you're probably more surprised to find out that there are homosexuals who are law savvy that don't care for the recent proposition 8 ruling. Most people don't realize that this judge's decision was not unanimously popular with gay rights supporters who are of a more Libertarian mindset because of the precedent it sets for putting the judge's feelings above other parts of the lawmaking process. Rather than dancing in the streets at the downfall of proposition 8, they have been concerned about the role that the federal government is taking in our lives. (If you're still the type of person who jumps to conclusions about someone based on their politics, you should know that Glenn Beck things gay marriage is just fine, even though President Obama opposes it.)
Have a good weekend.
2 comments:
I can totally understand why some gay rights supporters are upset about this decision. It does set dangerous judicial precedent concerning judicial activism. It seems obviously biased, and there seems to be a chance now that it won't be able to be fully resolved because the defenders of prop 8 might not even be allowed to defend it and the state of California seems to desire to refuse to do so. (that's a despicable representation error, in my opinion) It will be really sad if this is not allowed to run its full course all the way up to the Supreme Court.
As for myself, I believe that the U.S. government should not discriminate in this area. I actually don't think they should be granting marriage licenses at all or providing exclusive benefits to married couples.
It does set dangerous judicial precedent concerning judicial activism.
I keep hearing this but no one seems willing to explain what they mean by "judicial activism." What does that mean? That he reversed the vote of the people? Because that happens all the time, particularly when the vote of the people conflicts with the principles embodied in the Constitution. Or is it that he interpreted the Constitution? Because that is the job of a judge. I'm struggling to understand what part of this opinion is "judicial activism," since even a cursory reading of the opinion reveals that the judge did what he was supposed to do, which is apply t&e principles of the constitution to the law in question based on the evidence presented. The fact that some disagree with his interpretation does not make it "activism."
Post a Comment