To the editor: Descriptions such as "restraint" or "intervention" seem inappropriate when describing our current Supreme Court justices. I prefer the terms "unreasonable" or "reasonable." ("Same-sex marriage ruling highlights Supreme Court quandary: Restraint or intervention?," June 29)Unreasonable justices would take four words, without context, from a 900-plus page document and decimate an entire healthcare law that is working for millions. Or they would allow inequality to fester until "the people" fix it, which could be decades or never.
Reasonable justices would read an entire law and glean its intent when determining its constitutionality. They understand that drafting mistakes can be made but refuse to throw the baby out with the bath water. Or they would use provisions already written into the Constitution to end decades-long inequality.
None of the justices should be viewed in terms of whether they used restraint or intervention because all do both; instead, they should be viewed as individuals who interpreted the law in ways that made America a more perfect union — or who were just in the way.
Eugene Sison, San Dimas
To the editor: So red-state governors and the religious right insist that same-sex marriage is for the states, i.e. the people, to decide, not the Supreme Court. And terrifyingly, four out of nine justices agreed.
But what these hand-wringers really count on is a majority that votes out of fear and dogma, which always tramples the rights of any minority — in this case, homosexuals.
These same democratic state majorities once voted down interracial marriage and integration.
Justice never needs a majority. It needs rational, intelligent people to implement and safeguard it.
Richard Mandl, West Hills
To the editor: Congratulations. The Supreme Court did exactly what it was supposed to do — or at least five of the justices did. Evidently, the four dissenters didn't understand their jobs: to determine whether a law or practice is constitutional under the provisions of the U.S. Constitution.
Our Constitution guarantees equal protection, access and treatment under the law. When a specific group is excluded for any reason, by nature that exclusion is unconstitutional. It has nothing to do with personal feelings, religious beliefs or personal or group moralities.
But the dissenters felt that their feelings and beliefs trumped the Constitution.
A right is a right — there is no debate. What is a right for some is a right for all.
Stewart Bubar, Culver City
To the editor: I'd just like to add my two cents, seeing as how I'm about the only one who hasn't.
Just as "not guilty" does not mean "innocent," making something "legal" does not make it "right."