“For our opponents to say, as they have repeatedly, that there is no rational reason for limiting marriage to a man and a woman except for animus and bigotry is to spurn 7 million Californian voters, 70 of 108 judges, the vast majority of state legislatures and electorate after electorate who support marriage between a man and woman.”
Andrew Pugno, the general counsel for Protectmarriage.com, released this as a press release just after closing arguments in the case that would overturn California's Proposition 8. This sentiment has been, more or less, a summary of the backlash against the decision that overturned that gay marriage ban.
The outcry from social conservatives immediately lit up the airwaves and blogosphere, with comments about legislation from the bench, activist judges, and the anti-American nature of defying the will of the people, once again proven by a judiciary that went against a strong majority of voters who supported the law.
But let's be clear.
Marriage is a right protected by the constitution as found in supreme court precedent. This term 'right' has powerful legal significance. It entrenches Marriage into those elements granted to all persons within the United States. The purpose of inalienable rights is to protect certain qualities of life AGAINST THE MAJORITY who might attempt to remove them. This is why the courts were created. The founders understood that the will of the majority could be as dictatorial as any tyrant if left completely unchecked. To prevent minorities - not just ethic, but religious, social, and any other group that would not be able to assert themselves via the democratic process from excessive abuse, we formed a system by which the judiciary could step in and review a law against certain core principles that would remain in favor of persons even against the will of the majority.
Striking down a law on constitutional muster is one of the most fundamental protections our rights as Americans have. It is genius within our system that keeps us safe from mob rule. There are things that the majority can pass and control that are beyond the purview of judicial interference - but an articulated constitutional right is not one of them. Any law that seeks to restrict or limit such a right falls under the strictest scrutiny particularly if a group of people is to be unilaterally denied the right completely.
My purpose here is not to argue the merits of gay marriage. Instead it is to remind particularly my conservative readers that the 'will of the people' has no 'right' to be in this discussion. Our fundamental rights are ours an no person, group, or majority, can take them away or force their change by mere popular demand. We should all be extremely thankful that this is the case, as one day, inevitably, we may find ourselves in a minority and will be depending on the court to protect us from what might be hostility from the larger number.
Andrew Pugno, the general counsel for Protectmarriage.com, released this as a press release just after closing arguments in the case that would overturn California's Proposition 8. This sentiment has been, more or less, a summary of the backlash against the decision that overturned that gay marriage ban.
The outcry from social conservatives immediately lit up the airwaves and blogosphere, with comments about legislation from the bench, activist judges, and the anti-American nature of defying the will of the people, once again proven by a judiciary that went against a strong majority of voters who supported the law.
But let's be clear.
Marriage is a right protected by the constitution as found in supreme court precedent. This term 'right' has powerful legal significance. It entrenches Marriage into those elements granted to all persons within the United States. The purpose of inalienable rights is to protect certain qualities of life AGAINST THE MAJORITY who might attempt to remove them. This is why the courts were created. The founders understood that the will of the majority could be as dictatorial as any tyrant if left completely unchecked. To prevent minorities - not just ethic, but religious, social, and any other group that would not be able to assert themselves via the democratic process from excessive abuse, we formed a system by which the judiciary could step in and review a law against certain core principles that would remain in favor of persons even against the will of the majority.
Striking down a law on constitutional muster is one of the most fundamental protections our rights as Americans have. It is genius within our system that keeps us safe from mob rule. There are things that the majority can pass and control that are beyond the purview of judicial interference - but an articulated constitutional right is not one of them. Any law that seeks to restrict or limit such a right falls under the strictest scrutiny particularly if a group of people is to be unilaterally denied the right completely.
My purpose here is not to argue the merits of gay marriage. Instead it is to remind particularly my conservative readers that the 'will of the people' has no 'right' to be in this discussion. Our fundamental rights are ours an no person, group, or majority, can take them away or force their change by mere popular demand. We should all be extremely thankful that this is the case, as one day, inevitably, we may find ourselves in a minority and will be depending on the court to protect us from what might be hostility from the larger number.
Comments
Post a Comment