In the darkness the trees are full of starlight (henwy) wrote,
In the darkness the trees are full of starlight

  • Mood:

Civil unions perhaps, not marriage

I'm getting a bit pissy that the balance of powers on which our government is founded has been rocked by activist judges. I don't understand how we can allow this to stand and still keep the branches in balance. Judges should rule on the constitutionality of law, but not write legislation themselves. I fully believe that the Mass supreme court had every right to rule that the law of that state violated the state constitution. That is their job after all but they had absolutely no right to demand that new law be written. It is as if the supreme court woke up tommorrow, heard a vouchers case and ruled that since vouchers provide more equal access to education, it is now the law of the land and every state is FORCED to provide school vouchers. It would be ridiculous. The court is there to rule on the law, NOT to make law. It can strike down a law but it cannot force the legislature to legislate.

This strikes fundmentally against the power of the people since the judiciary is the most removed from direct control by the people. We elect legislators to write the law, we elect a president to the executive to carry out the laws and lead, but the judiciary is the least democractic part of our government. Federal judges are not elected to their positions, and most state judges never face the ballot box either. This puts enormous power into their hands without adequite checks and balances and the threat becomes greater when they exercise not only their power to judge laws, but co-opt that of the legislature to write them as well.

Now, I was going to talk more specifically about gay marriage and civil unions, but I got a bit sidetracked as you've no doubt noticed. My problem with gay marriage is that it's changing the definition of marriage which annoys me. For many, marriage is also a religious institution and in fact began with the church. I simply don't see why the definition needs to be expanded when there are civil unions as an alternative. What's to stop someone from marrying their pet dog next? Homosexuals should have the same rights, privledges, and responsibilities as married heterosexuals but I simply can't agree with calling it marriage.

  • Post a new comment


    Anonymous comments are disabled in this journal

    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded