Comment: The real issue here ...

(See in situ)

The real issue here ...

... is dereliction of duty. The court did not rule on anything having to do with rule of the majority or whether the law passed was constitutional or not. They simply said the appellant had no standing in court. So, they had no issue before the court to decide.

When the People of California passed the law, it was appealed. The employees of California are duty-bound to defend the laws of the state. But since they did not like the law, they refused to do their duty.

Since the lawyers for the state refused to defend the law in court, the people who brought forth the law (via proposition) stepped in to make the defense. The SCOTUS ruled they don't have standing so they cannot be involved in the case at all. Case dismissed.

So, what do we do when the employees of the state are guilty of dereliction of duty?

What do we do when the state refuses to enforce immigration laws?

What do we do when the state refuses to enforce presidential eligibility provisions in the Constitution?

What do we do when if a state refuses to defend medical marijuana laws they don't like when the feds take them to court, and the feds win by default because the other side doesn't show up?

And the same question arises in this case.

This is why we need to enforce laws against government employees who violate the law.

In this case, there was no constitutional or rights issue involved. It was strictly the failure of the California Attorney General to do the job he was hired to do.

Strictly speaking, gay marriage should be banned in California due to the law passed and the Attorney General should be going to prison for a few years.

Rule of Law or Rule by Oligarchs? That is the question.