I am very disturbed that the U.S. Supreme Court refused to rule on the constitutionality of Proposition 8, thereby allowing a lower court decision to stand.
Proposition 8 was passed in 2008 by a broad majority of Californians to define marriage as a relationship between one man and one woman. If someone doesn’t like Proposition 8, they have the right to put a constitutional amendment on the ballot to define marriage as something else, and let the people decide how they want to define it.
The Supreme Court used a lame excuse of not ruling on Proposition 8 by saying they could not rule on it because the people defending it were not authorized to do so. But the Supreme Court rules on a lot of cases that are brought before them by a lot of different people all the time, and they may or may not be defended by the state. So to say that they can’t rule on it is really saying that they don’t have the intestinal fortitude to say that the people have a right to define marriage as they did in Proposition 8.
In California couples may register as domestic partners and have many of the same rights that married people have, and there is no reason why a federal Domestic Partners Act could not be passed for the whole country. But to redefine marriage as anything other than a relationship between one man and one woman is unnecessary.
I am also concerned about future cases that may come before the Supreme Court. What if a man wants both a husband and a wife? What about three women marrying, or three men marrying? Or what if a person wants to marry the horse or the dog they love? Don’t those people have “rights,” too? So where do we draw the line?
Redefining marriage is unnecessary, and it was wrong for the Supreme Court to overrule the will of the people by refusing to rule on Proposition 8.