Naveen Nadipuram’s intemperate rant in his Oct. 4 op-ed [The Imperial Judiciary Lives On], concerning the decision by U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker invalidating the California voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage, entirely misses the point when he chastises the court for “inventing a right to same-sex marriage.”
Rather, Walker found that the ban on such unions violated the equal protection guarantee of the U.S. Constitution. In doing so, the judge did exactly what we expect our judges to do: he measured the ban — in the form of an amendment to California’s state Constitution by voter referendum — against long and well-established principles of federal constitutional law. In this case, the enactment simply did not pass the test.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
