Reply #51: You're missing the point. [View All]

[Unvanguard]

Yes, it's true, one basis for objecting to the CA Supreme Court's decision could be that its equal protection standards are too stringent. But nothing in the language of Prop. 8, or even in the rhetoric of its supporters, suggest anything of the sort.

The other basis for objecting to the CA Supreme Court's decision would not have anything to do with the stringency of its equal protection standards as such, but rather to their specific application to the issue of "traditional" marriage: opponents of the decision could argue, "Keeping marriage between a man and a woman is so important that even a stringent equal protection standard shouldn't stop it", or "As long as equal legal rights are granted to all (through civil unions), equal protection has nothing to do with it." The first argument has no bearing on other equal protection cases, and the second argument has only minimal such bearing.

You and I may find such arguments absurd--I do, certainly--but we are not the people of California, and the Court's job is not to rule on the wisdom or the rationality of the justifications of Prop. 8 but simply to consider whether it in fact constitutes a far-reaching change to California's governing principles.

Edit: You also fail to consider that there is a difference between a legal argument and a constitutional amendment. A legal argument, yes, should be founded in standards applicable to other cases. But a constitutional amendment need not be: it may just constitute a specific exemption to a general principle that is deemed valid.