The Supreme Court recently ruled on questions regarding the Defense of Marriage Act, and Proposition 8, the ban on gay marriage that was passed in California. This whole situation disturbs me deeply, and it has nothing to do with gay marriage, for or against. So for the sake of this discussion, let's get past that politically charged issue and look at what I believe is a much BIGGER problem.
That problem is this: A law was passed in California that many found to be repugnant. Because of that, the law was challenged in court. Let me be clear on this- a completely legitimate law faced a completely legitimate challenge.
Now, whenever a law is challenged, there are always 2 sides to the argument- The prosecution, or those that feel that the law is unconstitutional, and the defense, which is the executive branch in charge of enforcing the laws. Namely, the Department of Justice on the Federal level, and whatever the equivalent is in California.
The DOJ is supposed to defend the laws that are passed by Congress and state legislatures/majority vote, whatever the rule is in that sate. However, in the case of DOMA and Prop 8, the executive branch refused to defend the law. Do we understand what that means? Our government refused to defend a law that was legitimately passed by federal and state authority because those in power for it personally and politically repugnant to do so.
So we were left with a court case with only one side- which is impossible to litigate. Therefore, a group of Senators and proponents of the law put together a group to defend the law in California's Supreme Court. But there was a problem- they weren't the one's that were supposed to be arguing for the law, the State was, but the State was MIA. Because of that, their defense of the law was rendered invalid and a lower court's earlier ruling overturning Prop B stood.
That's when it was taken to the Supreme Court, and THAT is what was on trial- not if gay marriage was OK or not, but could a group of people band together to defend a law that the State has neglected their duty to defend.
The Supreme Court has ruled no, they had no standing. The State must defend the laws because they have the standing to do so. Therefore, the whole thing was kicked back to where it was and Prop B remains invalidated by the lower court. The gay marriage issue was just a sideshow that muddled things up and got people all emotional.
So now we have what I consider to be a Constitutional crisis on our hands. We have a government that thinks it can pick and choose which laws they want to uphold and defend in court. And before you write it off as no big deal since you happen to like the outcome of this debacle, let me ask you if you would feel that way with the tables turned? What if a fiercely racist state decided to overturn Brown v Board of Education and segregated their classrooms? Would you be OK with a government that put their hands in their pockets and refused to defend the law because they found it politically expedient to do so? No rational person would.
Republicans and Democrats need to get past their differences and unite on this one issue at least: we demand a government that does their job, regardless of personal feelings or political wind.
(And just for the record, I'm well aware that the ruling also decided that the federal government must recognize and extend the same benefits to married same sex couples as heterosexual couples. A ruling that I actually agree with, but is a separate issue from what I'm discussing here.)
That problem is this: A law was passed in California that many found to be repugnant. Because of that, the law was challenged in court. Let me be clear on this- a completely legitimate law faced a completely legitimate challenge.
Now, whenever a law is challenged, there are always 2 sides to the argument- The prosecution, or those that feel that the law is unconstitutional, and the defense, which is the executive branch in charge of enforcing the laws. Namely, the Department of Justice on the Federal level, and whatever the equivalent is in California.
The DOJ is supposed to defend the laws that are passed by Congress and state legislatures/majority vote, whatever the rule is in that sate. However, in the case of DOMA and Prop 8, the executive branch refused to defend the law. Do we understand what that means? Our government refused to defend a law that was legitimately passed by federal and state authority because those in power for it personally and politically repugnant to do so.
So we were left with a court case with only one side- which is impossible to litigate. Therefore, a group of Senators and proponents of the law put together a group to defend the law in California's Supreme Court. But there was a problem- they weren't the one's that were supposed to be arguing for the law, the State was, but the State was MIA. Because of that, their defense of the law was rendered invalid and a lower court's earlier ruling overturning Prop B stood.
That's when it was taken to the Supreme Court, and THAT is what was on trial- not if gay marriage was OK or not, but could a group of people band together to defend a law that the State has neglected their duty to defend.
The Supreme Court has ruled no, they had no standing. The State must defend the laws because they have the standing to do so. Therefore, the whole thing was kicked back to where it was and Prop B remains invalidated by the lower court. The gay marriage issue was just a sideshow that muddled things up and got people all emotional.
So now we have what I consider to be a Constitutional crisis on our hands. We have a government that thinks it can pick and choose which laws they want to uphold and defend in court. And before you write it off as no big deal since you happen to like the outcome of this debacle, let me ask you if you would feel that way with the tables turned? What if a fiercely racist state decided to overturn Brown v Board of Education and segregated their classrooms? Would you be OK with a government that put their hands in their pockets and refused to defend the law because they found it politically expedient to do so? No rational person would.
Republicans and Democrats need to get past their differences and unite on this one issue at least: we demand a government that does their job, regardless of personal feelings or political wind.
(And just for the record, I'm well aware that the ruling also decided that the federal government must recognize and extend the same benefits to married same sex couples as heterosexual couples. A ruling that I actually agree with, but is a separate issue from what I'm discussing here.)
