Well Don I am all in favor of the courts striking down unconstitutional laws or in many cases the just poor legislative laws that often are the attempt in a defense of marriage legislative law.
However I think a federal court will have a hard time striking down a constitutional amendment that a state has done without first having the arguement that demonstrates that the amendment in itself is against the United States Constitution.
Here is the problem with the gay marriage movement - the state sanction marriage is a license - nothing more nothing less, it allows the state to recongize a simple contractual relationship between two people. The state has the ability to define what constitutes what type of contractual relationship. The DOMA has not been ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, and until that act is revoked by congress or ruled unconstitutional the states are able to establish what constitutional amendments or laws that define marriage as thier individual constitutions allow. The courts hands are actually tied to the legalize of the written word of the legislative law or the amendment. And amendments will be very difficult to rule unconstitional if they followed the established process
What many dont realize is that in itself marriage does not entitle automatic insurance coverage, or the ability to recieve your partner's pension. This has to be established by the agencies and the companies issuing them.
Those who wish to protest this action by the voters of California need to protest the fact that the campaign by those who wanted the measure voted down did not campaign against it strong enough or could not counter the emotional aspects of the amendment.
So it goes back to my point - exactly what individual rights are being denied to the individual who happens to be gay with this constitutional amendment?
Bookmarks