Gay Marriage Belongs in the Courts

[many a good man]

In a democracy, majority rules. The Legislature can pass any law it wants, as long as it is approved by a majority. The role of the Courts is to rule on the constitutionality of the laws passed. This is how the rights of the minority are protected in our system of law.

Therefore, isn't it entirely appropriate that the question of gay marriage gets decided by a court? If the majority is in favor of a law that violates the civil rights of a minority, it is up to the court's to strike down that law. Am I missing something, or isn't this one of the most basic tenets of our constitutional system??

I think arguing against this issue being decided by the courts, not the "people", shows a complete ignorance of the American political system. Are the conservatives who argue against the court's role merely ignorant, or are they simply opposed to constitutional democracy? Why isn't our side pointing this out?

[kayell]

1. Some are, or their goal is to get cases in front of the courts

I'm sure this is exactly Gavin Newsom's strategy - force the issue into the courts. Also the mayor of Ithaca is setting the stage for Ithaca to take NY state to court over licenses for gay couples. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=1182349

As for why the probable dem candidate(s) and pols aren't speaking out - my opinion is that a lot of dems have fallen prey to the playing to middle fallacy. They spend a huge amount of time trying to avoid the repuke talking points like "activist judges" rather than challenging the pukes, and standing up for what's right. To the point where they come across as completely spineless. They act as though being liberal IS something to be ashamed of rather than a point of pride.

I absolutely agree with you that this is an issue for the courts. Here's what I had to say on this earlier today. -

I believe that is what will happen (that questions re gay marriage will be decided by taking heterosexual judicial precedents into consideration) specifically, that the issue will wind up being decided by the SCOTUS, probably using the precedent set by Loving vs. VA, and based on the equal protection clause in the 14th amendment.

If the Bushites weren't completely aware that the SCOTUS will wind up having to rule that way, they would never have said they would support such a ridiculous proposal as a Marriage Discrimination Amendment. They did consult legal scholars before making that decision, and I'm sure they were told that restricting marriage rights to heterosexuals will wind up being ruled unconstitutional.

There are plenty of states that will continue to discriminate for decades to come if allowed to, just as there are states that never would have legalized interracial marriage. Because of that, this will wind up decided on the national level, just as other civil rights cases have been.

This related thread is at http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=1180137