69 Days to I-Day, 1529 Days to GOD (Goodbye Obama Day)--The Problem with Judicial Fiat

Connecticut joins a sad set of States which has had the issue of gay "marriage" settled by unelected and unaccountable jurists. The imposition of public policy via judicial fiat instead of through the legislative process (AKA: legislating from the bench) is a bad idea all around. It is not the purpose of the judiciary to legislate nor to impose public policy.

The major problem with this can be seen in the case of California and Proposition 8.

Since the high court in California stated that marriage law (defined in public policy, common law, and tradition as between a man and a woman) was discriminatory and removed the "limitation" of this traditional definition, homosexual couples have been allowed to persue marriage licenses and to get "married". The problem is that the legislative process was usurped by this over-reaching of the court.

Now that the legislative process has been able to move forward, the people have reasserted the traditional definition and public policy in Prop 8. Now we have a problem--the other side now states that "rights are being taken away"...BUT IT IS THEIR OWN DOING BY PERSUING A JUDICIAL ANSWER TO WHAT MUST NECESSARILY BE A LEGISLATIVE ONE. I do not know what will happen with the "marriages" which took place between the activist court's decision and the passage of Prop 8...I believe they should rightly be declared invalid (since it was not the place of the court to legislate this to begin with).

The definition of marriage ("Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.") is now part of the Constitution of California (after all, Prop 8 was an amendment), so how can it be unconstitutional? It will now take an amendment to overturn it--not a decision by one judge or a group of judges, or even the legislature of the State acting without the people voting. In fact, since any change to this would be a constitutional revision it would require a 2/3 majority in the CA legislature and then a majority of the electorate.

We are seeing the inherent problem of judicial fiat. If one wants to change something, the proper channel is to seek legislative relief. In this case (and in all cases surrounding this issue), judicial decisions which attempt to redefine marriage are overreaching. Marriage is what it is...one does not change a societal definition because it offends one's sensibilities.

Marriage law IS NOT DISCRIMINATORY! Any man who is 18+ can marry any woman who is 18+ (as long as she will have him) as long as they are not blood relations, already married to another, or otherwise limited by law. THERE IS NO DISCRIMINATION IN THIS just as there is no discrimination in the fact that I, as a man, cannot get maternity leave, have OB/GYN medical expenses covered by my insurance, have an abortion, etc. IT IS DEFINITIONAL NOT DISCRIMINATION!