Get up-to-date information on current events related to public policy,law, and news analysis. It is designed to inform and sometimes entertain the average Joe.
Although I have no problem with gay unions (be they civil or otherwise) I think that Arnie's move is the correct one. Until the California courts rule that Proposition 22 is unconstitutional, the legislature should not be able to pass laws that clearly contradict that referendum. I would not be surprised if a court does rule that the referendum was unconstitutional before the end of 2006. Although it will raise national cries of "Judicial Activism!", I look forward to that ruling, as Prop 22 does violate the civil liberties of the gay and lesbian communities.
I think that this will eventually reach the US Supreme Court in someway shape or form. I dont think that this is a situation where each state can set its own policy. The Supreme Court will have to wrestle with a couple of issues 1)equal protection clause--if it does apply how does it apply to this situation 2) Article 5 section 2 of the US Constitution. The full faith and credit clause which permits states to refuse to honor the laws of another state. The states have soverignty amongst each other. The federal government has not been traditionally involved with family law so that could complicate matters as well. There are obviously profound political/legal issues that have to be addressed in the coming months and years on this issue.
2 comments:
Although I have no problem with gay unions (be they civil or otherwise) I think that Arnie's move is the correct one. Until the California courts rule that Proposition 22 is unconstitutional, the legislature should not be able to pass laws that clearly contradict that referendum. I would not be surprised if a court does rule that the referendum was unconstitutional before the end of 2006. Although it will raise national cries of "Judicial Activism!", I look forward to that ruling, as Prop 22 does violate the civil liberties of the gay and lesbian communities.
I think that this will eventually reach the US Supreme Court in someway shape or form. I dont think that this is a situation where each state can set its own policy. The Supreme Court will have to wrestle with a couple of issues 1)equal protection clause--if it does apply how does it apply to this situation 2) Article 5 section 2 of the US Constitution. The full faith and credit clause which permits states to refuse to honor the laws of another state. The states have soverignty amongst each other. The federal government has not been traditionally involved with family law so that could complicate matters as well.
There are obviously profound political/legal issues that have to be addressed in the coming months and years on this issue.
Post a Comment