Court Spits in Voters’ Eyes . . . Again

By Joy Tiz —— Bio and Archives August 6, 2010

Comments | Print This | Subscribe | Email Us

The will of the people is the only legitimate foundation of any government . . . -Thomas Jefferson California voters have long been scoffed at by activist judges substituting their own agenda in place of the law. The ignominious Jerry Brown state Supreme Court appointee, Rose Bird, habitually overturned death penalty cases because she personally didn’t approve of the death penalty. The people of the Golden State eventually threw her out of office.

The California voters passed Proposition 187 in 1994 by a margin of a mere 58.93%. Prop 187 would have, in accordance with Article II, Section 8 of the Constitution, denied tax payer funded benefits to illegal aliens. It took just three days for a federal district court judge to spit in the eyes of the voters and enjoin enforcement of a statute passed by a clear majority of the voters. The federal court eventually issued a permanent injunction . The new statute contained such inflammatory language as:

834b. (a) Every law enforcement agency in California shall fully cooperate with the United States Immigration and Naturalization Service regarding any person who is arrested if he or she is suspected of being present in the United States in violation of federal immigration laws.

The part that had the left in hysterics was the denial of public benefits absent a showing of lawful presence in the United States:

10001.5. (a) In order to carry out the intention of the People of California that only citizens of the United States and aliens lawfully admitted to the United States may receive the benefits of public social services and to ensure that all persons employed in the providing of those services shall diligently protect public funds from misuse, the provisions of this section are adopted. (b) A person shall not receive any public social services to which he or she may be otherwise entitled until the legal status of that person has been verified as one of the following:

1. A citizen of the United States.
2. An alien lawfully admitted as a permanent resident.
3. An alien lawfully admitted for a temporary period of time

California voters have the power to put initiatives on the ballot for review and consideration by the citizenry. It’s not a perfect system, much of what ends up on the ballot has Orwellian titles and incoherent language. But, it’s the system we have. Proposition 8, however, was pretty straightforward. In 2008, Californians went to the polls to decide whether to amend the California Constitution to limit the definition of a valid marriage to be one between a man and a woman. As opposed to, say, between a man and a Schnauzer. Or between partners of the same sex. Surprisingly enough, seven million Californians voted in support of Prop 8. It sailed right through with 52.24% of the vote. The caterwauling began within moments. In August, 2010, the federal district court once again spat in the eyes of the voters. Judge Van Walker drafted an eccentric one hundred thirty eight page ruling that addressed a number of entirely irrelevant issues. To summarize the judge’s opinion: homosexuality is good for everybody! That, however, was not the issue in front of the court. The only issue in dispute was whether the amendment violated the plaintiffs’ civil rights. The judge talked a lot about stigmas and immorality, but dodged the issue of exactly where in the Constitution he found a right to marry a same sex partner. There is no such right in the U.S. Constitution. Marriage laws have always been the exclusive domain of the individual states. That’s why people run off to Reno for a quickie divorce. California was quick to embrace the notion of no fault divorces. Some states still require a blood test to get a marriage license. Nebraska sets the legal age to marry at 19. That is as it should be. The state has a far greater interest in marriages and divorces than does the federal government. But, the only way to get Prop 8 in front of a federal judge is to claim a violation of civil rights, which has yet to be proven. Indeed, there are states in the union which do permit same sex marriage. Thus, it makes no sense to compel the people of California to accept same sex marriage which they resoundingly rejected at the ballot box. Gay couples are free to wed in any state that so allows. Nebraska eighteen year olds are not claiming civil rights violations—they can simply marry in another state at age eighteen. The real issue in the Prop 8 case isn’t gay marriage—it’s another example of a runaway activist court system that merrily spits in the eyes of the voters who pay their generous salaries.