Why shouldn't same sex marriage be a ballot issue?

Question

Whats up with the judges thinking they can make rulings telling the people what they voted on is wrong and illegal? Whats up with judges thinking they can interprut law as opposed to upholding law?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070831/ap_on_re_us/same_sex_marriage

Answer 1

One of the reasons the U.S. was founded as a Democratic Republic rather than a pure Democracy was a realization that a majority will frequently use their voting majority to oppress minorities. That was also the purpose of the Bill of Rights, the Constitution exist specifically to preclude laws contrary to the good of the country as a whole. As Theodore Roosevelt said in 1912, "The Country will not be a permanently good place for any of us to live in unless we make it a reasonably good place for all of us to live in." Adlai Stevenson was given to pointing out that a free society is one in which it is safe to be unpopular.
The reason same sex marriage is illegal is because it was forbidden by the Judeo/Christian churches, and, since a clear, if not overwhelming, majority of voters-not people, VOTERS-come from that demographic, anything left to the ballot will tend to reflect that world-view. This makes it unsafe to be unpopular, as witness the rise in hate-crimes against minorities, particularly Gays and Muslims, and ensures the lack of a good country in which all may live.
Learned Hand, Chief Judge of the U.S. 2nd Ckt Court of Appeals, who has been described as the "Finest Judge who never sat on the Supreme Court", put it this way in 1931: "The condition of our survival in any but the meagerest existience is our willingness to accomodate ourselves to the conflicting interests of others, to learn to live in a social world."

Answer 2

Buddy, ya know I loves ya, but I just disagree with you 100% on this. Certain things, specifically civil rights, should NEVER be put up to a vote. I feel that the majority has an OBLIGATION to keep rights of minorities safe from public opinion, and gay marriage is one of those issues to me.

As for the judge upholding the law, I guess that is a different issue. I think that maybe the judge in this case was incorrect, but I do not know all the details. But it IS the job of the judicial branch of the government to also interpret the law, because if they do not know what the law is, they CANNOT uphold it. The judge decided (rightly?) that the law as voted on by the citizens of Iowa was against the Iowa constitution in the following manner:

Polk County Judge Robert Hanson cleared the way for the two men on Thursday when he ruled that a state law allowing marriage only between a man and woman violated the constitutional rights of due process and equal protection.

Quite frankly it IS the responsibility of the judicial system to determine the consitutionality of ALL laws! That is why we MUST fight against a national constitutional amendment! Because I believe that is the ONLY way that same-sex marriages will be able to be stopped!

Answer 3

If people in the South voted to bring back slavery, should it be allowed? If the people voted to take the right to vote away from women, would that be legal and binding? If the civil rights that were fought for in the 60s were rolled back by a majority vote would that be acceptable?

Of course not. Because a law is on the books does not make it right. The court must interpret the law with the aim to making all things equal to a majority of the population under its jurisdiction.

If there are inequalities enforced by a majority that causes harm (physical, mental, emotional, financial, psychological, etc) then I believe the courts should employ their powers to right those wrongs. The majority is always the majority but it is not always right.

Answer 4

As much as I agree, in this instance, I have to tell you that the laws work fairly well here and so, when they work, the work.

When Spitzer refused to push the marriage issue it was not because he did not support marriage, he did and does. It was because the laws of New York expressly stated that marriage was between a man and a woman...it was an accident of time, not an anti-gay law. He has been working with the system to change that law which would allow the issue of gay marriage to move on.

Sometimes conservative judges get their way. Sometimes they don't.

Let's hope that more liberal minded judges and politicians come in over the next few years!

And VOTE!!!!!


:-)

Answer 5

Federal judges interpret law, in deference to the basic documents that govern our society- i.e. the Constitution and Bill of Rights- because that's what they're supposed to do. If we left lawmaking and enforcement to popular opinion, it'd still be illegal for a black man to marry a white woman in Mississippi, and a felony for the couple to marry elsewhere and enter the state. Without this oversight, we'd have dozens of ballot initiatives every election cycle on everything from prohibiting Tom's Diner from changing its hours, to banning Muslim books from public libraries. And I have to say, it's highly hypocritical for the "let the people vote" folks to say we should let popular opinion rule on this issue, and whine about "activist" judges, even as their teams of lawyers scheme to manipulate the system and overturn laws behind the scenes on issues for which they do not have public support. Like abortion rights, and same-sex benefits in communities that support them. In other words, "let the people vote" now, before they change their mind, but only on issues where they know they can win.

Answer 6

In my state gay marriage was voted down by a 76% margin, and was overturned by a judge who claimed that the voters "didnt understand what they were voting on". Wonder how she voted on the issue herself. Activist judges are upsetting our checks and balances system by legislating from the bench. These types are almost exclusively liberal leftists because they cant get their laws passed through the legislature or at the ballot box because people reject them.
I would like to address a couple of the other responses as well:
1)Anyone who cited this as an equal rights or equal protection under the law issue has a thumbless grasp of those concepts. Everyone in america has the same right to get married; even prisoners serving life sentences. Gays can get married, they just cant redefine marriage for the entire society to marry someone of the same sex. Equal protection under the law means protecting your right to do what the law permits...not your right to choose whatever you please.
2) Anya said what if white males were allowed to decide the rights of blacks and women. I guess she thinks that women and blacks voted for their right to vote.....before they had the right to vote? It was exclusively white males that voted for women's suffrage and blacks as well. No one else at the time had the right to vote.
3) I dont see what the conduct of animals has to do with the issue. I've heard homosexuality defended many times by the claim that animals engage in it, so it is natural. Animals also eat their own feces, eat or kill their own young, fight to the death over mates...and my dog licks his own genitals in public. No one defends this conduct in humans just because animals do it. Simply put, we are above animals and their conduct sets no standard for our own.

Answer 7

It has been a ballot issue in many states. Letting other people vote on our rights is not a good idea. I don't trust sheep. Judges interpreting things has always led to trouble. Half the bill or rights has been taken away due to judges messing with the plain meanings of our liberties. Judges are lawyers. Nuff said. Congress has abdicated it's responsibility to be an equal branch of government. We need to fire them all.

Answer 8

Dont know much about gay marriage. But there are alot of issues i feel that should just be put on a ballot and let the American people decide if we want it or not. Such as abortion. Put it on the ballot. Let the American people have the final say. If we vote it in, thats fine. Its the law of the land and nobody should be able to change it. If we ban it, same thing. The American people have spoken so lets get on with our lives.
Gay marriage is another one. Let the American people have the final say on it. If we go for it, great. If not oh well, life goes on.
Im tired of hearing judges argue for decades on the same issues without ever getting them resolved.

Answer 9

It is a judge's job to rule on constitutionality of laws. If the judge ruled the law was valid, would you still question why he was ruling? The U.S. Constitutional was written to benefit all not just the majority. If the rule was always majority wins then women and minorities would not be enjoying the rights they have.

Answer 10

Because I honestly just think that it shouldnt be up for discussion at all. Its an equal rights issue. They should be entitled to the same privilages and rights as everyone else, with out exception. There is no need to for the people to vote on whether or not someone can get married. Thats like having a vote to decide if me and my boyfriend can get married. It just moronic.