SCOTUS allows California gay marriage

The Supreme Court dodged expressing an opinion that same sex marriage is a constitutional right, while at the same time allowing California to resume homosexual marriage.  It is now obvious that June 26 will become an annual day of celebration in the homosexual community, and via the considerable cultural influence it wields, perhaps in the broader society.  We can expect San Francisco's Gay Pride Parade this weekend, already expected to draw a million and a half people, to become an explosion of revelry of all sorts.

The 35 page decision in Hollingsworth et al v Perry is here. In essence, the Court held that the parties bringing the case had no right to do so, therefore leaving standing the original court decision that invalidated California's Proposition 8.  The backstory is that when a federal judge invalidated the voter-approved proposition, the state of California declined its constitutional obligation to appeal the decision. In its place, private citizens stepped up to appeal. The Court held that they had no standing to do so. Chief Justice Roberts joined the liberal bloc and writes:

We have never before upheld the standing of a private party to defend the constitutionality of a state statute when state officials have chosen not to. We decline to do so for the first time here.

In essence, the Court is saying that if elected officials decline to carry out their legal duties, citizens only have access to the ballot box, not to the courts, as a remedy.

The Supreme Court dodged expressing an opinion that same sex marriage is a constitutional right, while at the same time allowing California to resume homosexual marriage.  It is now obvious that June 26 will become an annual day of celebration in the homosexual community, and via the considerable cultural influence it wields, perhaps in the broader society.  We can expect San Francisco's Gay Pride Parade this weekend, already expected to draw a million and a half people, to become an explosion of revelry of all sorts.

The 35 page decision in Hollingsworth et al v Perry is here. In essence, the Court held that the parties bringing the case had no right to do so, therefore leaving standing the original court decision that invalidated California's Proposition 8.  The backstory is that when a federal judge invalidated the voter-approved proposition, the state of California declined its constitutional obligation to appeal the decision. In its place, private citizens stepped up to appeal. The Court held that they had no standing to do so. Chief Justice Roberts joined the liberal bloc and writes:

We have never before upheld the standing of a private party to defend the constitutionality of a state statute when state officials have chosen not to. We decline to do so for the first time here.

In essence, the Court is saying that if elected officials decline to carry out their legal duties, citizens only have access to the ballot box, not to the courts, as a remedy.

RECENT VIDEOS