MORAL, ETHICAL, VALUES, THAT ARE CUTTING INTO THE FABRIC OF THE U.S.A.
The writer believes that our nation as a whole entity — would be far better off if someone in the right place such as within the executive branch, most certainly the legislative branch (congress) and definitely within the judicial branch — perhaps the United States Supreme Court be charged with the limitations of what one crazed man in the White House can do and/or should need authorization to continue further, rather than by executive fiat.
Issue Two — It Is believed that unlike most laws, that are normally put forth before the American people, does indeed generate clear positioning albeit by polling data, or at least make sure that the congressional district is sought out and heard on the matter before the Representatives or (aides?) that have been elected to the congressional district, public policy debates, and finally a fusion between those publically held domains should be able to deliver at the very least some suitable information for all concerned before any such law can be initiated. (Face it here in Maryland there are some lacking due-diligent officials.)
It should come as no surprise to anyone what catastrophic events happened in the great
state of California involving law making. The people of California voted convincingly in a general election to support the Supreme Court of California ruling In re Marriage Cases, which found that barring same sex marriages was deemed against the California Constitution. The issuance of those licenses was halted during the period of November 5, 2008 through June 27, 2013 (though existing same-sex marriages continued to be valid) due to the passage of Proposition 8—a state constitutional amendment barring same-sex marriages. The granting of same-sex marriages recommenced following the United States Supreme Court decision in Hollingsworth v. Perry, which restored the effect of a federal district court ruling that overturned Proposition 8 as unconstitutional.
On August 4, 2010, United States District Court Chief Judge Vaughn Walker declared Proposition 8 a violation of the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of the U.S. Constitution in Perry v. Schwarzenegger, a decision upheld by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The case, known as Perry v. Brown in the Ninth Circuit, was appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court on July 31, 2012. The case was granted review as Hollingsworth v. Perry on December 7, 2012 and a decision was issued on June 26, 2013.
The Court decided that the official sponsors of Proposition 8 did not have legal standing, or otherwise referred to as the “something to lose” doctrine, to appeal the district court decision when the state’s public officials refused to do so. The judgment of the Ninth Circuit was vacated and the case was returned to that Court with instructions to dismiss the Prop 8 sponsors’ appeal. On June 28, 2013 a stay of effect was removed from the federal district court decision and same-sex marriages were able to resume. Same-sex couples married later that day.
It is therefore interesting to note that before the passage of Proposition 8, California was only the second U.S. state (after Massachusetts) to allow same-sex marriage. Those marriages granted under the laws of other state governments, foreign and domestic, were legally recognized and retained state-level rights since 2008.
This is where the entire law making process got trumped and the Usurpation of politics by none other than the judicial branches flew into law making without rules of law that preceded it.
A long story shortened for readably: In the beginning same-sex marriages in California were banned by the state’s Constitution. Because of the lack of knowledge, or otherwise, California began issuing licenses. Although the original cases brought before the district and Circuit Court of Appeals did not align together, the People of California proposed by general election ballot to vote on their preference of the laws. This was called Proposition 8 which WON during the voting process therefore becoming a California Constitutional Law – part of the constitution.
Does any one feel as though the people who voted for Prop.8 and Won the Constitutional amendment status — were treated fairly?