Summary: America remains locked in a battle between Left and Right. Each fights to protect the Constitution — or the pieces of it they value. Neither cares for the it as other than a tool to advance their interests. The Constitution, torn between them, slowly withers. The American people mildly, intermittently cheer both sides — wanting what they want, ignorant and uncaring of the political processes that constitute the Republic. Today we see this tragedy play out over same sex marriage.
.
Americans have voted for laws not allowing same sex marriage. Now opinions have changed (for the better IMO), and we can change those laws. Acts of collective action like this, working through our elected representatives, strengthen the Republic. We shape America, making our history, showing our power to govern ourselves. This is the natural course of evolution in a democracy.
But many prefer quicker extra-legal measures, wanting results NOW — not caring about the means. Or the consequences. The Courts, often ready to act as priest-kings — deciders — provide a fast track for social change. As with Roe vs Wade in 1973, the likely result of Supreme Court voiding the Defense of Marriage Act (1996) will be to extend and embitter the debate and further weaken the legitimacy of the courts.
The Republic — and hence us, the people — grow weaker with each exercise of extra-constitutional power by the Courts and the Executive, no matter how well-intentioned. Eventually our leaders will take bold action, promising to give us what we want — security, prosperity, whatever — without bothering to pretend to follow the Constitution. At that point the Constitution will have died.
My guess most of us will live to see that day.
Some people on the Right look at the Courts. Today they cherish the Constitution
I agree with the following views. But the core fact of American politics today is that neither Left nor Right value the Constitution as anything other an instrument to advance their policies. Tomorrow — when looking at government oppression of Muslims, extra-legal assassination of Americans, or illegal surveillance — they might show less concern about old documents.
“Gay marriage and the Supreme Court’s empire“, Paul Mirengoff, Powerline, 4 March 2013:
{N}ine glorified lawyers are about to tell us whether the traditional definition of marriage as requiring members of the opposite sex is rational and/or useful (whether the standard is “rationality” or “utility” is up for grabs in the case). By “traditional definition of marriage” in this context, I really mean the universal definition — one that, as far as I know, prevailed until very recently in all societies since the beginning of recorded time. Isn’t it odd that as few as five judges could determine that the traditional definition of this fundamental institution is irrational (or not useful), and make this judgment stick?
“Supremacist Courts“, Mark Steyn, National Review, 4 March 2013:
.
What’s weird about all this is that, around the world, supposedly free peoples are happy to accord the bench (even a bench whose arguments are as incoherent as the Ottawa guys’) a monopoly power on all the great questions of the age. … The universal deference to judicial supremacism is bizarre and unbecoming to a free people.
“Married by the Judge“, Mark Steyn, National Review, 26 March 2013:
It may well be that the tide has turned, and the American people are cool with gay marriage. In that case, their elected representatives should enact it into law (as the House of Commons at Westminster recently did).
For More Information about same sex marriage
(a) Other posts:
- Another American judge weakens the Republic’s foundation, 8 August 2010
- The quest for Black’s civil rights was not like the quest for same sex marriages, 11 August 2010
- Civil rights just took a step forward, the slow hard way. The right way., 9 November 2012
- What’s the future of the family in America? How will that change our government?, 11 November 2012
(b) Another perspective:
See other work by Tom Tomorrow at his website.
.
.
