Ruling an assault on Democratic process

Published 7:00 am Sunday, June 28, 2015

The Supreme Court’s 5-4 ruling in favor of striking down same-sex marriage bans was an historic moment. For those in favor of same-sex marriage, it was a triumph. For those who treasure the Democratic process, it was a terrible defeat.

“If you are among the many Americans — of whatever sexual orientation — who favor expanding same-sex marriage, by all means celebrate today’s decision. Celebrate the achievement of a desired goal. Celebrate the opportunity for a new expression of commitment to a partner. Celebrate the availability of new benefits. But do not celebrate the Constitution. It had nothing to do with it,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in his dissent. “Five lawyers have closed the debate and enacted their own vision of marriage as a matter of constitutional law.”

“It is not of special importance to me what the law says about marriage. It is of overwhelming importance, however, who it is that rules me. Today’s decree says that my Ruler, and the Ruler of 320 million Americans coast-to-coast, is a majority of the nine lawyers on the Supreme Court.

Subscribe to our free email newsletter

Get the latest news sent to your inbox

… This practice of constitutional revision by an unelected committee of nine, always accompanied (as it is today) by extravagant praise of liberty, robs the People of the most important liberty they asserted in the Declaration of Independence and won in the Revolution of 1776: the freedom to govern themselves. States are free to adopt whatever laws they like, even those that offend the esteemed Justices’ ‘reasoned judgment.’”— Justice Antonin Scalia

“The majority invokes our Constitution in the name of a ‘liberty’ that the Framers would not have recognized, to the detriment of the liberty they sought to protect. Along the way, it rejects the idea—captured in our Declaration of Independence — that human dignity is innate and suggests instead that it comes from the Government. This distortion of our Constitution not only ignores the text, it inverts the relationship between the individual and the state in our Republic. I cannot agree with it.” — Justice Clarence Thomas

“Most Americans — understandably — will cheer or lament today’s decision because of their views on the issue of same-sex marriage. But all Americans, whatever their thinking on that issue, should worry about what the majority’s claim of power portends.” — Justice Samuel Alito

The ruling answers with a loud “yes” the question of whether the Supreme Court’s opinion trumps the votes of citizens. Millions of Americans voted for constitutional amendments in their states to ban same-sex marriage.  The Supreme Court has decided those votes are meaningless.

Several states, through the Democratic process, had approved same-sex marriages. That process ended with the court’s ruling.  I suspect those who oppose same-sex marriage would have accepted it as law more easily if that process had continued. But a ruling by a majority of the court simply forces the nation — many begrudgingly — to accept same-sex marriage as the law of the land.

Regardless of how you feel about the issue, think about the implications of the court’s decision. A majority of nine attorneys has overridden the will of voters in several states. That’s something that should trouble all of us.

Abraham Lincoln, a president who championed equality, touched on this issue during his inaugural address.

“At the same time the candid citizen must confess that if the policy of the government, upon vital questions, affecting the whole people, is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made, in ordinary litigation between parties, in personal actions, the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having, to that extent, practically resigned their government into the hands of that eminent tribunal,” Lincoln said.

In this case, the people have ceased to be their own rulers. There’s nothing particularly unsettling about that as long as you agree with the High Court. But if you do not — and all of us at some point will disagree with the court — that’s unnerving.

 

Luke Horton is the publisher of the Daily Leader.