Copy of the amazing Ninth Circuit decision on Prop 8
The dissent points out that under the level of scrutiny involved for this case the government "has no obligation to provide evidence to sustain the rationality of statutory classification," that the measure at issue "is not subject to courtroom fact-finding and may be based on rational speculation unsupported by evidence or empirical data," and that states "may use their police power to regulate the 'morals' of their population" (pp. 11-12). If anything, the dissent doesn't go far enough in that it would seem to only allow states to withhold the word "marriage," not any of the rights that come with it, from homosexual marriage.
The majority here also doesn't explain why any type of a marriage between consenting adults shouldn't be allowed.
If judges can go this far in arbitrarily judging whether legislation is rational or not, there is nothing that judges can't redo in terms of their own political preferences.
Labels: marriage
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home