Oh dear. Bush apologist, McCain supporter, and former senator Rick Santorum has offered his addlepated opinion on the recent gay marriage ruling in California (Fedora Tip: 2 Political Junkies. He says:
“…The state Supreme Court there ruled, 4-3, that same-sex couples can marry. In doing so, four judges rejected a statute that passed in a referendum with 61 percent of the vote that defined marriage as a union of one man and one woman. It’s merely the latest in a string of court decisions that have overturned the overwhelming will of the people.”
As another blogger (a valedictorian law student no less) pointed out, sometimes the will of the people is in conflict with constitutional law. He says, “California’s Supreme Court did not override the will of the people; it simply looked at two different expressions of the people’s will and decided that the constitutional expression trumped the statutory expression, which is entirely proper.” I agree. If it is truly the will of the people of California to limit marriage to monogamous heterosexual couples, they’ll have to amend their state constitution.
A few days ago, the California Supreme Court struck down a statutory regime that gave same-sex couples essentially the same rights and duties as married couples, but called them “registered domestic partners” instead of “married couples.” This, the court said, violates the equal protection clause of the California Constitution.
The court did not say whether same-sex couples should be allowed to marry and have their relationship called and recognized as a “marriage.” As the court pointed out on pages 4 and 5 of the slip opinion:
The Pitt News, like most college newspapers, is know more for articles written by liberals and libertines than libertarians. Nevertheless, in the last few months I’ve noticed several editorials that present or at least hint at libertarian ideals. Here’s a sampling. Give me your impressions in the comments.
Why is it that for many people, they think that certain political ideas should go together by default? If one is pro-life, they must be for the Iraq war. If one is against the death penalty, they must be for (so-called) homosexual marriage. If one is pro-environment, they must be pro-choice. If someone is conservative politically, they are grouped with the conservative platform, and vice-versa. Shouldn’t we all know that this is not true?
Along the same lines recently, as far as I have noticed, Republicans (at least) have been toting the “united we stand” position. In other words, a Republican must be pro Iraq war, against any spending on health insurance, pro death penalty, pro-life, against environmental initiatives, for big business (especially the pharmaceuticals, big media, and auto manufactures), and against (so-called) homosexual marriage.
This is what is wrong with the American political party situation: one has to concede his or her personal position in order to meld into their respective party. I am not a cafeteria Catholic, but politics is too complex to blindly be led by all the fallible parties.