Word: courtã
(lookup in dictionary)
(lookup stats)
Dates: all
Sort By: most recent first
(reverse)
...violated equal protection laws. We applaud the Court for recognizing this violation, and for choosing to address it. Some criticize the Court for overruling California’s ban on gay marriage when voters had passed a state-wide initiative upholding it in 2000. However, such arguments overlook the Court??s duty to intervene on behalf of the minority when their rights are at stake. The Court accurately viewed the 2000 initiative—which defined marriage as solely between a man and a woman—as a violation of the rights of gay and lesbian couples...
That we have reached a point where the Supreme Court of California is willing to accept the institution of gay marriage is a sign of the incredible progress that the gay rights movement has made. While this decision will help promote an outcome that I strongly support, the court??s move is founded on the wrong reasons and reflects an overreach of judicial power that rests on a shaky argument...
...What right is being violated by the Court??s decision? According to the Court, the right to “establish… an officially recognized and protected family.” But stated in the opinion, California already recognizes domestic partnerships between same-sex couples that give them “virtually all of the same substantive legal benefits and privileges… [as] a married couple.” Same-sex couples already have the same hospital visitation and inheritance rights as opposite-sex couples. The right in question here is simply a matter of nomenclature...
...Neither of these potential positive effects, however, justifies the Court??s decision. The Supreme Court of California does not exist to serve the interests of a minority or to send a political message. As long as Proposition 22 does not violate constitutional rights, the Court has no choice but to uphold it, no matter what message that sends. Achieving these political goals, and changing the definition of marriage to reflect a new consensus, is not the proper role of the judiciary...
...Monday, the Supreme Court ruled in a 6-3 decision that an Indiana law requiring government-issued photo identification at the polls is constitutional. We believe that both sides of the Supreme Court??s argument—that the law does not place an undue burden on citizens’ ability to vote and that this law protects against the imminent threat of voter fraud—are misguided. This law, which is one of the nation’s toughest, does not allow voters to use utility or phone bills or employee identification at the polls...