No1marauder has frequently compared the Prop 8 decision to Loving v. Virginia and other similar cases that allowed interracial marriage.
Charles Krauthammer thinks the best comparison to this decision is Roe v. Wade, where by the Supreme Court, by purporting to cut off democratic debate on the issue, arguably provoked a backlash that might be fueling anti-abortion sentiment to this day.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2010/08/06/krauthammer_prop_8_ruling_will_go_to_supreme_court.html
Which comparison is better? Should the courts simply allow the political process to play itself out? If it does so, you'll certainly see gay marriage pass in blue states like California within the next 5-10 years anyway. Or is it the responsibility of the courts to spearhead social change, even at the cost of provoking a backlash?
Originally posted by KazetNagorraThe judges didn't precisely legislate; they determined that a piece of legislation was unconstitutional and thus should be repealed. Surely this is what the Supreme Court is for - to define how the rights enumerated in the constitution apply to specific pieces of legislation. This would surely be the case even in Europe, where a judge's responsibility might be construed as to determine whether national legislation is in harmony with European law.
I don't think it's the responsibility of judges to legislate. Let judges judge, and legislators legislate.
However, I agree with sh76 that the cause of gay marriage (of which I approve) might itself be best served by allowing attitudes to evolve gradually rather than by imposing change through judicial fiat.
Originally posted by sh76It is the responsibility of the Courts to protect the Fundamental Rights of the people, ALL of the people even if the majority wish to deny a minority those rights. Interracial marriage was just as disapproved by the majority at the time of Loving as gay marriage is now:
No1marauder has frequently compared the Prop 8 decision to Loving v. Virginia and other similar cases that allowed interracial marriage.
Charles Krauthammer thinks the best comparison to this decision is Roe v. Wade, where by the Supreme Court, by purporting to cut off democratic debate on the issue, arguably provoked a backlash that might be fueling anti-ab ponsibility of the courts to spearhead social change, even at the cost of provoking a backlash?
LESSONS OF LOVING
The ban on interracial marriages existed in the United States until the U.S. Supreme Court?s Loving v. Virginia decision in 1967. California was the first state in the nation to end the ban on interracial marriage in 1948 with the State Supreme Court ruling in Perez v. Sharp. As can be seen in the table below, these court decisions didn?t reflect the popular sentiment at the time. In 1958 (10 years after the Perez decision), the first Gallup poll on this issue showed 94% of Americans opposed interracial marriage and in 1968 (a year after the Loving decision), 72% opposed interracial marriage.
If the Supreme Court would have waited for favorable polling data, interracial couples would have been excluded from marriage until 1991 which was the year of the first Gallup poll that showed more Americans in favor of interracial marriage than opposed. It?s unthinkable today to consider that type of ban existing for so long.
http://www.marriageequality.org/polls-and-studies
