But he’s too busy writing books about 9/11 was our fault because we don’t love Americahate America for its freedoms like he does.

Fixed it for you. Dinesh was the one saying “if we were more like the Taliban, they wouldn’t attack us”.

The court has to pretend that there is a right to gay marriage even though it is nowhere evident in the state constitution.

Let’s play the Conservative, Strict Constructionist Game!

Does the state constitution say that gay people cannot get married? No, it does not. Therefore, it’s a right that exists. That’s all this decision says.

All the court has said is that if the legislature overturns the gay-marriage ban, everything’s cool.

For a guy who writes so much about America, you’d think D’Souza would take 10 minutes to find out how it works. But he’s too busy writing books about 9/11 was our fault because we don’t love America like he does.

Then there’s the whole Republican governor giving it the thumbs-up thing. Whoops.

In other words, how can a court overturn a law enacted through a democratic process? Well gee, what is it higher courts are supposed to be doing?

They’re supposed to be rubber-stamping the decisions of The Decider. It’s not like we have three branches of government with checks and balances written into the Constitution or anything. Duh.

;-)

Although defendants maintain that this court has an obligation to defer to the statutory definition of marriage contained in section 308.5 because that statute - having been adopted through the initiative process - represents the
expression of the “people’s will,” this argument fails to take into account the very basic point that the provisions of the California Constitution itself constitute the ultimate expression of the people’s will, and that the fundamental rights embodied within that Constitution for the protection of all persons represent restraints that the people themselves have imposed upon the statutory enactments that may be adopted either by their elected representatives or by the voters through the initiative process. As the United States Supreme Court explained in West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette (1943) 319 U.S. 624, 638: “The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One’s right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.”

Indeed, Chief Justice Burger made the same point for a majority of the United States Supreme Court in Citizens Against Rent Control v. Berkeley (1981) 454 U.S. 290, observing emphatically that “[i]t is irrelevant that the voters rather than a legislative body enacted [the challenged law], because the voters may no more violate the Constitution by enacting a ballot measure than a legislative body may do so by enacting legislation.” (Id. at p. 295, italics added.) Accordingly, the circumstance that the electorate voted in favor of retaining the traditional definition of marriage does not exempt the statutory limitation from constitutional review, nor does it demonstrate that the voters’ objective represents a constitutionally compelling state interest for purposes of equal protection principles.

In other words, how can a court overturn a law enacted through a democratic process? Well gee, what is it higher courts are supposed to be doing?