The judge in San Francisco has made what I believe is the correct finding for the correct rationale...
Quote:The conservative group argued that the weddings harm all Californians who voted in 2000 for Proposition 22, which defined marriage as between a man and a woman.
The judge suggested that the rights of the gay and lesbian couples appeared to be more substantial.
"If the court has to weigh rights here, on the one hand you are talking about voting rights, and on the other you are talking about equal rights," Quidachay said.
http://www.salon.com/news/wire/2004/02/20/sf_marriages/index.html
One can easily imagine the results of a referendum held forty years past in, say, Alabama, on whether blacks ought to be kept out of community swimming pools (a group of texans holidaying in Las Vegas demanded the Sands Hotel swimming pool be drained and thoroughly washed after Sammy Davis Jr. was seen in it). Though a majority would almost certainly have voted to 'keep the black buggers out', it seems pretty obvious that constitutional principles should properly be considered senior.
And that points to the specious (and dangerous) thinking (or non-thinking, usually) sitting under the cliche "activist judges".
Without question, if such 'pollution-free swimming pool' legislation had been tabled and put into law, and if the present 'activist judges' label were in popular use then, any move by the courts to overturn such a law would have gained the wrathful 'activist judges' label.
) . Why should a medical classification control it's legal status?
