"The California Supreme Court clearly decided "what ought to be" rather than "what is." But the function of "what ought to be" belongs to the people and their elected legislators, not a handful of crusading escapees from law school who find the actual practice of judging d eadly boring when compared to the temptation of creating social policy. . . .
A proposed constitutional amendment defining marriage as between one man and one woman awaits the voters of California in November, having received more than 1.1 million signatures during the petition process. If that amendment passes, perhaps the justices on the California Supreme Court will be forced to dust off their unused copies of the state constitution and discover that it is the citizens, not the courts, who decide how they should be governed."
No comments:
Post a Comment