Gay marriage, conservatism and the role of the judiciary

The Supreme Court’s announcement that it will consider a pair of gay marriage cases this term puts conservatives in a tough spot.

On the one hand, same-sex marriage is clearly gaining political traction nationwide, with voters in Maryland and Maine both endorsing the practice in 2012 after years of rejection at the ballot box. Last weekend the first gay marriage was held in Washington state after voters approved the policy via referendum on Election Day.

On the other hand, certain outcomes in the cases would be devastating to conservative notions of the role of the judiciary and the federal government.

Although the GOP is largely staying silent about the cases, the party could educate Americans on the proper role of the judiciary without being hostile to gay rights by consistently applying conservative judicial principals to both cases.

For example, conservatives would be wise to embrace the case challenging President Bill Clinton’s 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), U.S. v. Windsor.  In that case, the plaintiffs are asking the Court to rule that Section 3 of DOMA violates the Fifth Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection of the law because it denies marriage recognition to gay couples who are legally married under state law.

One of the central themes of the challenge to DOMA is the notion that the states should, and historically always have, exercised full authority to dictate the terms of domestic law within their borders.  As the Second Circuit points out, “DOMA is an unprecedented breach of longstanding deference to federalism.”  True commitment to the Tenth Amendment means allowing states to experiment unimpeded with their laws and institutions, including marriage.

Conversely, the case that may overturn California’s Proposition 8, Hollingsworth v. Perry, is particularly troubling. In that case, the lower court held that because the California‘s Supreme Court previously established gay marriage, taking that court-granted right away from gay citizens through a voter-approved constitutional referendum ( Prop. 8 ) violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

In simpler terms, at issue is whether the legal views of a handful of unelected judges can effectively become permanent law, even against the will of millions of voters who wish to amend their state’s constitution specifically to overrule those judges’ opinions.  It’s hard to imagine a legal ruling more offensive to the notion of checks and balances or utterly adverse to the democratic process. Even ardent pro-gay rights activists should shudder at that kind of judicial precedent.

Conservatives should be consistent in their justifications for judicial outcomes and point out the various inconsistencies on the Left.

For example, equal protection under the law is imperative to the Left in the gay marriage context, but entirely ignored when racial distinctions are used in college admissions (also under consideration by the Supreme Court this term).  Federalism is God’s gift to the Constitution when DOMA is at issue, but Obamacare’s state coercion on Medicaid is apparently an acceptable intrusion on states’ rights.  And finally, the First Amendment is generally considered sacrosanct, except when free speech is exercised by certain disfavored speakers like corporations (even non-profits) or religious entities.

Republicans are right to feel the need to moderate on gay-rights, especially when it’s obvious that gay marriage referendums will likely continue to be approved by voters in states throughout the Union.  Indeed, the GOP barely made a peep when “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” was repealed or when President Obama announced his final “evolution” on the issue of gay marriage.

However, moderation on gay marriage should not prevent the GOP from staging a principled defense of conservative judicial principles. Gay marriage will end up legal in California within a few years regardless of what the Supreme Court does this term. Poor judicial precedent, on the other hand, may take generations to fix.

 

Comments

Comments

  1. theo mckinney says:

    4 REASONS

    It used to be legal to maim/torture/exile/murder gay couples out of fairness and equality.

    Arrests were finally made amongst the antigay lynch mobs and vigilantes, cases went to court, and “unpopular” citizens’ civil rights were gradually recognized or restored as the Constitution stepped in to finally identify those odious ways as 100% illegal, too.

    “No more bodily harm to LGBT citizens just to be mean” said the US Constitution every time it was asked. “people who try are to be considered ‘unlawful’.”

    “Equality and justice for all.”

    “Even the so-called *icky* Gay people”.

    Once it was discovered in Hawaii that marriage equality was clearly implicit to state constitutional law (without a ban of some sort edited in –long after the fact); this was when today’s fad for creating animus-driven -and/or a new “religious” inspired practice of gay human psychological/virtual “sacrifices” (In the Name of God, yet), was born:

    Another more thinly-veiled psychological attack on innocent gay citizens, now that the physical sorts of antigay attacks are being outlawed, even on school playgrounds.

    Believe it or not, there are some “church” factions bemoaning their growing inability to justify bullying innocent gay children under the color of school authority anymore. They call this turn of events “a problem”.

    I call that deranged. Only some Satan diety, if there is such a thing, could take delight in supporting such “ideals”.

    God seems to be on the side who speak the truth under oath; the very same ones who got the rainbow, too. And the couples who know deeply what “love, no matter what” might mean.

    ““““
    Unfortunately, the mechanics of checks and balances initially ALWAYS favors “laws”, good or bad which might be voted in by people, up until that laws is proven more harmful than benificent.

    On passing Federal Constitutional muster: if a “bad law” voted in by ballot has no validly recognized effect on the issue it was designed to remedy, yet harms certain innocent people –but not others- while it exists, that “law” must be stricken.

    DOMA has been failing on this count consistently. Ten times now.

    This is no accident.

    Meanwhile, in the initial federal ruling gutting CA’s ban, now court precedent, the judge shows four reasons, any one of which would kill such bad “law”-making as one of these “constitutional” (lol) marriage bans.

    Four separate and distinct litmus tests used to determine ACTUAL “Constitutionality”, and CA’s illegal Proposition 8 failed all of them.

    Because irrational law-making is illegal and marriage bans are, by all federal court accounts so far, illegal and irrational and cannot stand as “law” once challenged.

    Fact.

Polititainment

Jenner comes out as trans, Republican
Former Olympian and “Keeping Up with the Kardashians” star Bruce Jenner finally revealed that he identifies as a woman in his Friday night “20/20″ interview with Diane Sawyer, but it was a different announcement that had viewers freaking out. Sawyer asked if Jenner cheered when President Obama became the first president to even say the […]
Waka Flocka Flame endorses Hillary

Just days after announcing his own candidacy for president in 2016, Waka Flocka Flame is endorsing Hillary Clinton for the White House. The Atlanta rapper said during a recent interview with MTV News that he will vote for Clinton in the 2016 presidential election.

Obama honors New England Patriots

President Obama honored the Super Bowl Champion football team on the South Lawn, kicking off his remarks with a joke about the team's long since past "Deflate Gate" controversy.

Olivia Wilde endorses Hillary Clinton

Actress Olivia Wilde is "excited" by Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign. The film star, who campaigned for then-Sen. Barack Obama in 2008, expressed her enthusiasm for the "political discussions" that result from election season during a recent interview with The Daily Beast.

Robert Downey Jr. walks out of interview

Robert Downey Jr. cut short a recent interview with British Channel 4 News reporter Krishnan Guru-Murthy when the journalist questioned the actor about a past statement regarding how being imprisoned impacted his political beliefs.

2016

Sen. Cornyn worried about Clinton transparency

On Jan. 20, 2009, the U.S. Senate was poised to nominate then-Senator Clinton as secretary of State by a unanimous consent vote, but Sen. Jon Cornyn (R-Tex.) objected, temporarily thwarting Clinton’s nomination.

Jeb Bush is on the Paleo diet

Jeb Bush is slimming down ahead of his likely 2016 bid for the White House. The former governor of Florida has lost about 30 pounds on the Paleo diet since December, according to a report in The New York Times.

NYT reporter: Hillary calls everything 'off-limits'

New York Times reporter Jeremy Peters said on MSNBC's "Morning Joe" Thursday that Hillary Clinton ahead of her run for president in 2016 is dismissing every critical report about her as illegitimate and "off-limits."

Seth Meyers defends Hillary Clinton

Seth Meyers defended Hillary Clinton during Thursday's episode of "Late Night," dismissing allegations about the former secretary of State that will be laid out by the forthcoming anti-Clinton book "Clinton Cash."

Rick Perry disagrees with Christie on pot

Rick Perry is against legalizing marijuana--but, unlike Chris Christie, wouldn't "crack down" on states that choose to legalize.

Policy

Obamacare brings growth in food stamp enrollment
CHICAGO (AP) — President Barack Obama’s health care law has had a surprising side effect: In some states, it appears to be enticing more Americans to apply for food stamps, even as the economy improves. New, streamlined application systems built for the health care overhaul are making it easier for people to enroll in government benefit […]
DC gets mad at Gowdy and Buck over gun photo

Reps Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) and Ken Buck (R-Colo.) just dodged a run-in with the D.C. authorities.

The danger of policing through Facebook

These days, everything happens on social media--including solving crime.

Police seized 11-yr-old for defending legal pot

One Kansas school apparently found a child's earnest defense of marijuana legalization so threatening they called the police on his mother.

Support for Obamacare hits surprising high
Support for Obamacare has hit a two-year high, despite the tax season surprises that followed the law this year. According to a new Kaiser Health Tracking Poll released Tuesday, the percentage of people who say they support the healthcare law is greater than those who oppose it for the first time since the fall of 2012. […]