Spring Break
Calif. Proposition 8 should be upheld
Ian Bezek
Issue date: 3/10/09 Section: Opinion
This past November, California voters passed an amendment, Proposition 8, to their state constitution that defines marriage, saying, "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."
Now, a series of lawsuits have been filed in California courts to argue that the amendment passed by the people should be overturned. The lawyers arguing for the overturn of Proposition 8 made two main points. One of them was mundane legalese. However, the other argument is far more interesting.
The opposition to Proposition 8 argues that the amendment constitutes an abridgment of their inalienable rights. An inalienable right is a right that, according to legal theory, cannot be taken away by laws, kings or any other sort of human institution. All humans have these so-called moral rights. The right to not be murdered, for instance, crosses all cultures and legal systems.
Is gay marriage an inalienable right? Not really.
Constitution Society founder and three-time congressional candidate Jon Roland explains that the founding fathers weighed in on the issue of inalienable rights in the Bill of Rights, saying that certain rights became so-called social rights.
These rights are codified within the social contract of a society. The social contract of society is essentially the agreement between people and their government; the people give up some of their liberties in return for protection from the state.
Thus, in California, the voters decided in a fair election to determine that their social contract would not codify gay marriage as a constitutional right.
Is that the right or wrong decision? Frankly, it doesn't matter. The people voted and the people decided.
It's important to remember that last year the California Supreme Court struck down a law that would have made gay marriages illegal in California. Now, this case is appearing before the same court, and early indications are, according to the San Francisco Chronicle, that the court will uphold this amendment.
Now, a series of lawsuits have been filed in California courts to argue that the amendment passed by the people should be overturned. The lawyers arguing for the overturn of Proposition 8 made two main points. One of them was mundane legalese. However, the other argument is far more interesting.
The opposition to Proposition 8 argues that the amendment constitutes an abridgment of their inalienable rights. An inalienable right is a right that, according to legal theory, cannot be taken away by laws, kings or any other sort of human institution. All humans have these so-called moral rights. The right to not be murdered, for instance, crosses all cultures and legal systems.
Is gay marriage an inalienable right? Not really.
Constitution Society founder and three-time congressional candidate Jon Roland explains that the founding fathers weighed in on the issue of inalienable rights in the Bill of Rights, saying that certain rights became so-called social rights.
These rights are codified within the social contract of a society. The social contract of society is essentially the agreement between people and their government; the people give up some of their liberties in return for protection from the state.
Thus, in California, the voters decided in a fair election to determine that their social contract would not codify gay marriage as a constitutional right.
Is that the right or wrong decision? Frankly, it doesn't matter. The people voted and the people decided.
It's important to remember that last year the California Supreme Court struck down a law that would have made gay marriages illegal in California. Now, this case is appearing before the same court, and early indications are, according to the San Francisco Chronicle, that the court will uphold this amendment.
Viewing Comments 1 - 2 of 2
Registered Independent
posted 3/10/09 @ 8:57 AM MST
At the time both California's marriage laws and its Constitution were originally written, it was universally presumed that marriage was only between a man and a woman. (Continued…)
Bdygard
Craig Hawley
posted 3/11/09 @ 12:18 AM MST
Well put Reg Indy. I agree it will be upheld and it should be.
Post a Comment