Activist Governors
Most, if not all, of my conservative friends claim to support the idea of gay marriage. Perhaps that reflects the generational nature of the backlash against the idea. However, several of these folks claim that judges should not declare bans on gay marriage unconstitutional, but that the legalization of gay marriage must come from legislatures. I tend to believe that marriage is a fundamental right that should not be denied to consenting adults based on their sex alone, but I understand and respect the process argument.
So, how about when a state legislature legalizes gay marriage, and the governor promises to veto it? Why should Arnold have more power than nine of our finest judicial minds?
posted by Abe at 9/08/2005 09:20:00 AM
5 Comments:
Funny that this comes from the same guy who vigorously defended the idea of representative government over actual popular voting.
Oh yeah, that was in 2000 when Bush lost the popular vote.
In any event, it seems pretty weak to say the governor is a better representative of the people than the legislature.
But I see how the "process" argument has now become: judges can't interpret the constitution to allow gay marriage, legislatures can't legislate gay marriage (or they at least can't pass laws FOR it), governors and presidents should veto any legislation that is pro-gay-marriage. In your view, the only way gay marriage can be validly legalized is by a voter-initiated popular referendum?
I retract my aforementioned respect for the "process argument".
Fair enough. But you forgot the key responsibility of the judiciary to determine whether the state's acts are constitutional. The constitution contains the equal protection clause guaranteeing us all equal rights under the law. marriage is a fundamental right.
in other words, sure Arnold has the ability to veto legislation. that's no different that the fact that courts have the ability to declare it unconstitutional. for some reason, one of those abilities jams up your day and the other doesn't.
The judges of the SC have the authority to call an enacted law unconstitutional. I don't think they can call a veto unconstitutional. Arnold is within his power to use his veto pen. The legislature has the ability to override if they have the votes. I couldn't care less if gays marry. They're already living together. What's a piece of paper going to change other than right of survivorship?
Sorry, this has nothing to do with gays or marriages or the terminator: Go ND! Go 'Horns! Irish will kill Michigan. Weiss is god (lower case)
Ram, I expect that courts will look at gay marriage clearly through the lens of the equal protection clause. Last December, the Montana Supreme Court decided a similar issue -- can a public employer deny dependent health care benefits to a gay domestic partner when it allows them for a hetero partner? Under the equal protection clause, the Court said no.
But we've wandered a bit from the California situation. The legislature passed a law. The governor can veto it. End of story. Whether one agrees with his action is a matter of one's personal politics. I disagree with him, but he can do it.
Post a Comment
<< Home