I have a friend, a decent one at that, that is really into religion. Totally. He sometimes surprises me when his mouth opens. Now, I know it probably shocks you, dear reader, that I have massively conservative friends. I do believe that there is something about practicing what you preach. I preach that all people are equal. And if the GOP and their cronies don't see it that way, well, to each their own. Change comes from within. I even went to a Christian (Lutheran, to be sure, which is two steps shy of being Cahthlic) college, where I made these friends, so I wasn't too far from them, I suppose. It shouldn't be a total shock that my friends and I have differing views.. But the fact is, I see them as my equals. I would never put them down for their views. I will argue their views, but not them.
For example....(understand this is from a conservative newspaper, so it's an evil read)
Strangely, however, my friends actually support gay marriage, even the conservative ones. Never really sure how that worked. However, I find it is best not to look a gift horse in the mouth.
But when my buddy opened his mouth this one time, about Prop 8 in California, he stated, simply, "what about activist judges?" I questioned his line of thinking and he felt that, even though he was in support of gay marriage, a state has the right to vote on things and, in the end, people decided what they want as a culture. And no judge can press their own agenda until the unwilling masses. And if they were, they were being an “activitist.”
Facinating.
I didn't argue with him.
Until now. I wanted to do a bit of research. Can a judge put their will on the people, like so many politicos have tried? I wanted to be educated.
First off, the judge in questions shot down Prop 8 as unconstitutional. He said, like Amendent 2 in Colorado, that no person can be denied rights of others by merely being gay or lesbian. Prop 8 should not have been put before the voters since it basically removes a right granted and pressed forward by the state's Supreme Court. I'm not going to elaborate on the details, as a reader, I'll go ahead and guess you're familiar with the details. If not?
Here:
It came to light, however, afterwards that the judge who tore down Prop 8 was gay himself. And this was where my friend was coming from. However, my research made me come across some things to prove to my buddy-
*) Depending on the jurisdiction, some judges are voted into offices, some are placed by mayors, governors and, in the case of the SCOTUS, the President. Several counties can elect their judges, making sure they represent the area that they are working within. Makes sense. That way, you are (supposedly) linked inherently to the community you work for. That isn't always the case. In order to run for the office, you need cash, so judges tend to be upper-middle-class (or higher) so they have the money needed to be elected. As such, they tend to be outside of the situations they are presiding over. Do you think a judge would ever understand what it means to steal to feed their family? Doubtful. The reason I wanted to find this out was see if my friend was right. Were judges just radicals waving their own private flag? Since they are assigned in most cases--no. They do not link to a party affilate. However, their voting history will belie any polictical leanings. However, that would be documented.
Interesting.
*) So I moved on to the actual job of being a judge. Their job, and several viewings of Judge Judy confirmed this, is to interpret the law. Period. They have to justify their choices in sentencing for appeal purposes. Their goal is to make sure all laws are being followed. Like a Christian defending their actions by using the Bible, judges' purposes are to make sure that they interpret the previously written words as being followed. One word can mean many things. The word schmuck has hundreds of connotations, and they aren't always positive. The judge needs to see all of those options and find out in what manner the terminology was chosen and for what reason.
Interesting.
*) Activitism means to make choices in support. For many, the reason the cause exists is because some feels they are being marginalized. An animal activist might see that animals aren't being fairly treated in the eyes of the law; a medical marjuiana activist would activitely seek that laws are changed to benefit their lifestyle.
Interesting.
*) So is this judge an "activist judge?"
No. A judges' decision must be based on evidence presented (remember,there's no jury here) and the purpose of the laws that went before it. THe evidence is selected by the lawyers, no tthe judge. This is not always right, per se, but it is the way it is supposed to work. To blame a judge for voting in a manner that goes against your beliefs is like sueing your neighbor because it is raining. The two options are very separate. This judge had the capacity and honor to excuse himself from the case, but he felt, regardless of his sexuality, he could hack it. He took time before making his decision--proving it was not taken lightly.
He did not push his agenda. His reach is too short for that. He merely said this law is unjust, for it removes individuals who committed no crime (the only way you are removed from participating from the law fully) from participating in the legal process-in this case, marriage. Everyone should be equal under the law. Here is a group that isn't.
So now, I'm ready. Activism is not part of a judge's repetoire. I look to the next case to point out my concept a bit more clearer.
Now Vaughn Walker is himself coming under fire.I’ve not found evidence myself if he was conservative or libareal in his voting records, so I could be off base here. However , many supportors of Prop 8 are saying that he was bias due to the fact he would benefit by the overturn of Prop 8, since he is gay. Whoa. Okay, I thought those who supported Prop 8 were saying that Domestic Partnerships were enough and there was zero gain by making marriage legal. Okay, so since Prop 8 passed--everything would be fine, and gays would stand nothing to gain since they already had domestic partnerships. Their very own statements are confusing me. SO gays WOULD benefit if they got married? That means they are missing out!
I so need the federal govenment to get involved!
0 comments:
Post a Comment