The recent court ruling in California, which overturned the state’s gay marriage ban (( I agree with the court; banning gay marriage is wrong. )) cited the Heller case thusly:
Tradition alone, however, cannot form a rational basis
for a law. Williams v Illinois, 399 US 235, 239 (1970). The “ancient lineage” of a classification does not make it rational. Heller, 509 US at 327. Rather, the state must have an interest
apart from the fact of the tradition itself.
Cool.
Completely agreed, the case citation is quite appropriate.
Just playing the devil’s advocate here- does an opinion on gay marriage then make it appropriate for the court to overturn what a clear majority of Californians voted for twice? First as a law, then as a state constitutional amendment, the will of the people is clear and the margins are wide.
Eric: I, for one, say it is appropriate.
It is not appropriate for the majority to deny the rights of a minority, no matter how overwhelming the majority vote.
Having such legal protections is part of what separates us from a frenzied mob rule.