At least you're consistent at being wrong.No it doesn't. You just don't know what you're talking about. The ruling is clear is as a bell:
But as usual, you ignore anything you don't agree with. And shocker....you ignore Romer. Alas, the court is unlikely to ignore itself.
The case opens quoting, apparently approvingly, a dissent (usually the only opinions worth reading)
"One century ago, the first Justice Harlan admonished this Court that the Constitution “neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens.” Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U. S. 537, 559 (1896) (dissenting opinion)"
It then proceeds to strike down a law that purported to do just what Harlan wanted ....using, as far as I can figure, and as you said, a classification classifying gays as a protected class.
yes, I am ignoring this unintelligible pile of gibberish...which apparently has no bearing on gay marriage anyway or it would have already figured in the prop 8 or Doma cases.
By the way the underlying Colorado case talks of sexual orientation which sounds an awful lot like innateness to me.
Romer v. Evans has a clear bearing on the Constitutional merits of measures seeking to deny same-sex couples access to marriage laws, and serves as compelling precedent.
From the Proposition 8 ruling:
'Proposition 8 is remarkably similar to Amendment 2. Like Amendment 2, Proposition 8 “single out a certain class of citizens for disfavored legal status․” Id. at 633. Like Amendment 2, Proposition 8 has the “peculiar property,” id. at 632, of “withdraw[ing] from homosexuals, but no others,” an existing legal right—here, access to the official designation of ‘marriage’—that had been broadly available, notwithstanding the fact that the Constitution did not compel the state to confer it in the first place. Id. at 627. Like Amendment 2, Proposition 8 denies “equal protection of the laws in the most literal sense,” id. at 633, because it “carves out” an “exception” to California's equal protection clause, by removing equal access to marriage, which gays and lesbians had previously enjoyed, from the scope of that constitutional guarantee. Strauss, 207 P.3d at 61. Like Amendment 2, Proposition 8 “by state decree ․ put [homosexuals] in a solitary class with respect to” an important aspect of human relations, and accordingly “imposes a special disability upon [homosexuals] alone.” Romer, 517 U.S. at 627, 631. And like Amendment 2, Proposition 8 constitutionalizes that disability, meaning that gays and lesbians may overcome it “only by enlisting the citizenry of [the state] to amend the State Constitution” for a second time. Id. at 631. As we explain below, Romer compels that we affirm the judgment of the district court.'
PERRY v. BROWN FindLaw
Romer did indeed 'figured in' the Proposition 8 case.
As for DOMA, that was Federal law, not state.
Last, the tired canard that 'the Supreme Court sometimes gets it wrong, thus all its rulings are suspect,' is a ridiculous and ignorant 'argument.'
There is something devious and deceptive with activist courts making rulings that the people disagree with, thus forcing the public's hand, as in both Colorado and California, and then nitpicking with questionable "doctrines" the resulting backlash from the public.
Romer certainly did not figure in the final outcome of the prop 8 case...as that rested on yet another dubious "doctrine" that in a supposed republic, 7 million or so Californians can effectively be denied standing....an idiotic,and very dangerous idea.....that you should worry far more about than the prospect of not getting gay "marriage".
I noticed you ignored the question of orientation and innateness tho you've been braying about that for quote a few posts
Is any court which rules against majority opinion an 'activist court'?
I did not think that the courts were supposed to rule based on popular opinion at the moment, but rather on their understanding of the law and constitution.
I wonder if accusing judges and courts of being 'activist' is a recent phenomenon or something that has always gone on?
no of course not, for one thing a lot of court issues the public cares little about.
yes, and their various rulings on gay marriage have not been. I have a link of a study which shows that a few posts back.
well, at the time of our founding the people rightfully worried about the courts being merely a wing of the aristocracy.
When the Courts ruled against bans on mixed race marriage, the majority of Americans were firmly against mixed race marriage. It took almost 30 years before the majority of Americans opposed such bans.
Yet now, most Americans agree that the Supreme Court was right.
The courts are here to rule on the law, even when the majority of Americans may disagree.