Voters, not courts, should decide the fate of homosexual marriages

Sarasota Herald-Tribune ^ | 3/8/04 | Rod Thomson

[JulieRNR21]

A recent letter writer to the Herald-Tribune charged that President Bush's support of a constitutional amendment affirming that marriage is between one man and one woman is an act against love -- that is, sensual love between two people of the same sex.

The writer was trying to redefine the issue as one of personal affections, rather than an assault on millennia-old traditions.

But I submit there is a greater issue, and it has little to do with gay marriage. Bush's act was actually a reaction to a Massachusetts court ruling requiring that state to legalize gay marriage. That hits at the core of the bigger problem: No one voted on gay marriages. This is supposed to be a representative democracy with some direct democracy venues. That voting thing was pretty big with the founding fathers. But as was the case with abortion, forced busing and other issues, this was not decided by a vote of the people, but by judicial fiat.

The American people were never asked nor given a voice through their elected representatives. The decrees were legislated by a tiny, unelected, unaccountable group of people. I am not a wild-eyed doomsayer, but just to be clear, that is a reasonable definition of tyranny. The fact that it is simply accepted as a fait accompli should alarm everyone who has a semblance of understanding of the history of tyrannies and the slow decay of great and relatively free civilizations.

Bypassing the will of the people hasn't normally been the most effective tool to force cultural change in our country. The civil rights movement culminated in a series of laws passed democratically by Congress after a dramatic national debate. But it's different now. A few dozen gays in Florida filed a lawsuit recently to overturn the Florida law banning same-sex marriage. They know they cannot win democratically, so they seek a judge here and there willing to legislate from an unelected bench.

And why not? Our courts are becoming increasingly comfortable with issuing orders on cultural issues that should be left up to democracy.

More than 225 years ago, our forefathers suffered under the tyranny of an unelected, unaccountable king and his court who simply made decisions that seemed best for their cause. The American colonists had no say, hence the popular phrase arose "taxation without representation." Now we have what might be called "re-culturalization without representation."

I certainly have my opinion. The crying need in this country is a restoration of families, not a further diminution. But so what? My opinion doesn't appear to matter. I'm irrelevant. You're irrelevant. If a few robed justices have their way, only their opinion will count.

Without a change in direction, the courts will force us one day to face the fact that our checks and balances are no longer checking and balancing, that an imperial judiciary needs to be restrained, perhaps dramatically. It is a day that could be avoided.

Gay marriage will not ruin our country, although I do not think it is a step in the right direction. But continual court rulings that prevent any democratic action do have the power to undermine our country.

Americans are a live-and-let-live people, offering tremendous freedoms. Gays are largely allowed to be who they are, with just a modicum of consideration for the majority.

And so I say, in a plea for democratic freedom: Put it to the people. We'll live by the decision of the voters. Fear not, we have necessary protected rights for minorities enumerated constitutionally and legislatively. But in the end, if we are to survive as a democracy, we must be allowed to vote.

Rod Thomson can be reached by e-mail at rod@plow.org, or by writing to the Herald-Tribune.

[JulieRNR21]

More than 225 years ago, our forefathers suffered under the tyranny of an unelected, unaccountable king and his court who simply made decisions that seemed best for their cause. The American colonists had no say, hence the popular phrase arose "taxation without representation." Now we have what might be called "re-culturalization without representation."

The writer makes the case that Americans are faced with 'judicial turanny'.

[JulieRNR21]

This writer is the lone voice of reason on the NYTimes owned newspaper........PING

[cake_crumb]

"The writer makes the case that Americans are faced with 'judicial turanny'."

He's absolutely right. I already call 'em "mini-dictators"

[longtermmemmory]

For reference, this is what the homosexuals and the courts fear:


H.J. Res. 56 and S.J. Res. 26
Amendment Text:

Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman.
Neither this Constitution or the constitution of any State, nor state or federal law,
shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred
upon unmarried couples or groups.

[drypowder]

And so I say, in a plea for democratic freedom: Put it to the people. We'll live by the decision of the voters.

I hate to bring disappointing news but we Californians voted and put a law in place that only a Male and Female are allowed to legally marry. That law means squat to gays, lesbians, our AG, our Gov, the mayor and DA of SF or any other official with state wide policing authority. Majority does not rule unless a recall or guns are shown. Thus far, recall still gets their attention.

[King Black Robe]

Good article.

[King Black Robe]

Good point. Sigh.

[Southack]

Judicial tyranny is the smoldering issue of our times that the news media would prefer we not see.

[alloysteel]

One of the difficulties we have in understanding the Islamic world is the imposition of "Shar'ia" law, using the authority of the Qu'ran. Apparently there is not the principle of judicial review, in which a law which has been adopted and is in general enforcement, once broken, may be scrutinized using the authority vested in a document on which the law code is based, and determined to be either in conformity with that authority, or in conflict. If found in conformity, the verdict is upheld. If in conflict on a substantive point, clearly not trivial, the verdict is overturned, and the law as written is nullified.

Under "Shar'ia" law, the written law may be established by judicial fiat alone, whether it has been in contention or not. In effect, this is using the Qu'ran to dictate a law code, with no legislative input, and no expression of the will of the electorate.

This is what the activist judges have done. In the absense of a definitive legal opinion, in either an adopted law or history of case law, these interpreters of the law have unilaterally determined what, in their personal belief, the law should say, and they have rendered this decision without an inquiry from any interested party. In short, they have dictated law, which is vastly beyond their scope. Only legislatures may enact laws, and only executives may put them in force. Those laws are applicable until successfully challenged on the basis of conflict with the organizational document, or repealed by legislative act.

There is a vast amount of case law against any kind of marriage which is not that between a man and a woman, of legally permissible age, with specific prohibitions against consanguinity. A man cannot marry his sister or mother, for example. Case law, based on oral tradition and usage, has the same force and standing in courts as laws enacted by legislatures, unless the enacted law expressly repeals the tradition of the history of case law. So far as has been determined, the case law supporting traditional marriage has not been repealed by any legislative act.

[Dog Gone]

If we could just get the Supreme Court to reverse Marbury v. Madison, judicial tyranny would end. I don't see that happening.

[MeekOneGOP]

[WOSG]

I made the same claim in a letter to the editor.

let's see if they print it.

[Little Bill]

'judicial tyranny'

Hopefully the election of Scott Brown scares enough of the Members of the Great and General Court to get this on the ballot. The last time I talked to seamole, who has done an excellent job of rousing the troops, putting an opposition group together has been slow.

The battle starts again on 3/11, when the General Court reconvenes in Constitutional Convention.

[windchime]

"If a few robed justices have their way, only their opinion will count."

The past few years the leftist judges that have been embedded in our country have been rearing their ugly heads with increasing frequency. Observing and countering their actions is like playing wack-a-mole....they just keep popping up all over the place.

We need to vote out those judges that are elected and need to re-elect President Bush and Republicans so judges who DO NOT presume to make law can be appointed.