Letters to the Editor

Wednesday, Jul 03 2013 11:08 PM

It's called checks and balances

The Supreme Court ruling regarding gay marriage has many frustrated. The Californian printed a lengthy rebuttal by a guest columnist who asserted the Court's decisions were unfounded and not consistent with our nation's traditions ("Court's two marriage decisions were insulting," Phyllis Schlafly, July 2). This perspective has been echoed in many quarters. Many cite 2,000 years of Christian tradition. Others assert the will of the majority has been unduly silenced.

Opinions are frequently rooted in emotion and experience first. And infrequently, even secondarily, are opinions supported overwhelmingly with facts. It's easy to jump to the conclusion the high court has failed to correctly adjudicate the issues, and in this matter, over-stepped its responsibilities.

The Founding Fathers engineered the concept and practice of a multi-branch federal government. Authority vested in three branches of the government, exercising checks and balances on each other. Neither the legislature or the executive, nor ballot initiatives, can violate rights and principles protected by the Constitution. This is the key point, which has become lost as individuals discover their own opinions are not Constitutionally supported.

Many -- particularly flag-waving, Bible-reading Americans -- can't see anything positive in the Court's ruling. For those which value the Court's decision, it's equally frustrating to read and hear from those who are possibly experiencing disenfranchisement for the first time in their lives. And, in disbelief, articulating how unfair it is that the will of the majority has not had the final say on this controversial issue.

Wade Eagleton

Bakersfield

Bakersfield.com Daily Deal!

Manuel's Casa De Mariscos

Daily Deal

$20 worth of Mexican food for $10

Value
$20
% Off
50%
You Save
$10
19 Bought
Buy Now! See more deals