The news came last week that the California Supreme Court would issue their ruling related to Proposition 8 so I expected to have a reaction to that news today. I saw news this morning that President Obama would make his nomination for a new judge to replace Justice Souter – that news surprised me. Obama nominated Sonia Sotomayor. So far all I really know about her is that she is a Catholic, Hispanic female. I am not at all confident that we will ever have hearings in the Senate about a supreme court nominee that are more about qualifications than about politics, but if that day ever comes I am convinced that the founders were right to assign the task of confirmation to the Senate rather than the House or the people.
In California, the Supreme Court upheld Prop. 8. From what I had heard this ruling was not a foregone conclusion nor was it unexpected. The ruling provided answers to two related questions. One question was whether Proposition 8, which passed with 52% of the vote to define marriage in California as being between a man and a woman, was too far reaching to be added to the Constitution without the participation of the state legislature. As previously stated, the court denied that claim. The second question was whether the same-sex marriages performed before the passage of Prop. 8 would retain their legal recognition. On this the court unanimously agreed that they would still be recognized.
Regardless of my personal opinion on the legitimacy of same-sex marriage (just like the justices are supposed to make their rulings based on the law rather than their own personal feelings) I believe that the court ruled correctly on both questions. I believe that the question embodies in Prop. 8 is perfectly within the right and ability of the people to decide. I also believe that because the same-sex marriages performed before the passage of Prop. 8 were legal based on a previous ruling at the time they were performed the state must feel obligated to recognize those existing marriages (its the principles of ex post facto laws). The only way they could have annulled those existing marriages were if they were to rule that their ruling from last year was in error – which I expect they never will.
