Prop 8 is a State Issue, and Should Not Be Decided By the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court will hear arguments for Hollingsworth v. Perry later this month. The case challenges the constitutionality of Proposition 8, which states that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.

A number of high-profile individuals, including the president, have urged the justices to strike down this law. Despite these A-lister entreaties, it would be a grave mistake for the Supreme Court to strike down Proposition 8.

There are two important reasons for the Supreme Court to stay out of the case. The first is simple. Proposition 8 is a state law that was created by, voted on, and legally enacted by Californians. It is applicable only in California. The opinions of nine justices shouldn't trump a state with 38 million residents, especially when you consider the Constitution. Californians may one day decide to repeal the law, but the decision should not be made for them in a federal court.

The other critical reason that the Supreme Court should not interfere with Proposition 8 is because federal intervention is inappropriate. Several months ago, President Barack Obama said, “This is an issue that is going to be worked out at the local level.” Since making that statement, the president has changed course, but he was right.

The people of the U.S. vary widely in their thoughts and reactions to the issues of the day. For instance, gay marriage is not generally favored in the U.S. Voters in 39 states, including California, have passed laws specifically banning same-sex marriage. Some of the states, such as Alaska, do not recognize any same-sex unions. California has domestic partnerships that provide the same rights and responsibilities as a civil union. Yet Vermont and other states do recognize same-sex marriage. So who's right? Depends on who you ask, and the truth is, each state is doing what works for them. So they’re all right, in a way.

A one-size-fits-all federal mandate would be disastrous, whether the Supreme Court legalized gay marriage throughout the U.S. or banned all same-sex unions. Either way, they would tamper with the states’ right to self-govern and attempt to impose, per force, laws that are at odds with the various cultures. 

The latest piece to be added to this complex jigsaw is the amicus “friend of the court” brief submitted by the Obama administration last week. The brief urges the Supreme Court to overturn the country’s laws limiting marriage to a man and a woman. It’s worth noting that the Supreme Court has been deluged with legal briefs supporting and opposing the current law.

However, the president’s attempts to sway the outcome of the case are highly questionable, and the situation becomes sticky when you consider that he has appointed two of the sitting justices. While Obama's acceptance of rights is part of his agenda, his decision to submit a brief to the Supreme Court is at odds with the concept of protecting the justices from politics so they make decisions based solely upon the Constitution.

This article was originally published at Lost in the Garden.

How much do you trust the information in this article?

Ruby Lee

I'm a writer and a political junkie with no party affiliation. You can read more of my work at rubylee1776.wordpress.com.

MORE FROM

‘New York Times’ interview sparks latest wave of GOP frustration with Trump

The President’s “disturbing” comments on Jeff Sessions and Special Counsel Robert Mueller drew sharp rebukes from his own party.

Jordan Edwards’ mother speaks out after Monday’s indictment of the officer who killed her son

“We will not allow Jordan’s death to be another statistic.”

Trump keeps saying he wants to “let Obamacare fail.” How would that happen?

There are several ways the administration could sabotage the law, experts said.

AIDS deaths are almost half of what they were in 2005 — but experts worry Trump could reverse that

Trump's proposed budget cuts could be detrimental for those living with HIV.

OJ Simpson granted parole after nine years in prison

After serving nine years in prison for a 2007 armed robbery, OJ Simpson was granted parole in a unanimous vote on Thursday.

Black Lives Matter activists respond to the police shooting of Justine Damond

“Some white people don’t feel the tragedy until one of them is murdered.”

‘New York Times’ interview sparks latest wave of GOP frustration with Trump

The President’s “disturbing” comments on Jeff Sessions and Special Counsel Robert Mueller drew sharp rebukes from his own party.

Jordan Edwards’ mother speaks out after Monday’s indictment of the officer who killed her son

“We will not allow Jordan’s death to be another statistic.”

Trump keeps saying he wants to “let Obamacare fail.” How would that happen?

There are several ways the administration could sabotage the law, experts said.

AIDS deaths are almost half of what they were in 2005 — but experts worry Trump could reverse that

Trump's proposed budget cuts could be detrimental for those living with HIV.

OJ Simpson granted parole after nine years in prison

After serving nine years in prison for a 2007 armed robbery, OJ Simpson was granted parole in a unanimous vote on Thursday.

Black Lives Matter activists respond to the police shooting of Justine Damond

“Some white people don’t feel the tragedy until one of them is murdered.”