R
romarti
Guest
Yesterday the Califorina supreme court said that it was uncostitutional according to the state constitution to deny marriage to same sex couples. This is exactly the type of thing that conservatives call activism. My question is, if you have never read the California state constitution, how can you say that this is activism? For all we know (I haven't read it either), it may have an non discrimination article in there. They based their decision entirely on the state constitution of CA, and this would not affect any other state, but people from outside CA who have never read the constitution are somehow going to say that banning gay marriage is constitutional.
But they aren't applying personal beliefs. They are applying a literal reading of the constitution. If we haven't read the constitution in question, how can we say their literal reading is wrong?
But they aren't applying personal beliefs. They are applying a literal reading of the constitution. If we haven't read the constitution in question, how can we say their literal reading is wrong?