The Mindset That Causes Legislating From The Bench

A state appeals court in California ruled the pseudo marriage of to members of the same sex is not mandated by the state constitution in a narrow 2-1 ruling.

The deciding Justices which included Justice William McGuiness stated:

The Legislature and the voters of this state have determined that 'marriage' in California is an institution reserved for opposite-sex couples, and it makes no difference whether we agree with their reasoning,

In his and Justice Joanne Pirelli’s support for the separation of powers and the power of the people to determine their own fate.

I question the existence of the right to marriage since marriage is a social contract and not a characteristic that human beings are endowed with by the Creator. I am not arguing that individuals who meet the criteria necessary to enter marriage can do so as that is a right to liberty and a right to pursue happiness issue and not a right to marriage issue and calling it the later obscures those rights.

The deciding judges defended the power of judges to legislate with these words

That such a right is irrelevant to a lesbian or gay person does not mean the definition of the fundamental right can be expanded by the judicial branch beyond its traditional moorings,

And thus contradicted their earlier statement or maybe he was just saying that the judges are more powerful than the Legislature and the voters which is an idea that is opposed to the idea that every state should have a republican form of government.

On the other hand, Justice J. Anthony Kline, the dissenter must have been having a bad day to state:

the state's ban on same-sex marriage violates the rights of personal privacy and autonomy and is just as discriminatory as California's former ban on interracial marriage, which the state Supreme Court struck down in 1948.

Since marriage is a social contract and thus not something you keep his or concealed which would be personal privacy. You can not have it both ways. On the other hand his second objection is more open to opinion but flawed as he said it as just being discriminatory does not make something wrong and may actually make it right since forbidding someone to have sex with a dead person is discriminatory and it is also right.

I believe that marriage is formed under the idea that the two individuals involved could crossbreed by nature if they had the standard abilities of both individuals in the relationship and both have the ability to chose whether or not to marry. This means that even infertile individuals of the opposite sex can marry while a male dog and a female human being could not.

My source about the California Appeals Court Ruling In San Francisco.