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

One Response to “Gay marriage, conservatism and the role of the judiciary”

  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.

Leave a Reply

Devo does not want Scalise to 'Whip It'
A founding member of the 1980s band Devo really does not want to see House Majority Whip Steve Scalise “Whip It Good.” Scalise has been using the bands hit song “Whip It” at events and his staff recently created a joint fundraising committee with Rep. Patrick McHenry (R-N.C.) to raise money for a 1980s-themed birthday party […]
Jon Stewart rips Democrats for race-bait

“Oh, for f---s sake.”

Jon Stewart skewers VA wait times

In case you forgot, the VA is still terrible.

Stewart hits Cruz on privacy
Sen. Ted Cruz’s Monday presidential announcement made Christmas come early for Jon Stewart and “The Daily Show.” Stewart was positively gleeful as he prepared to mock everything from the kiss between Cruz and his wife to the fact that Liberty University students were forced to attend the campaign speech. But the liberal host did make […]
Jay Leno: College kids are too PC

Whether it's how ethanol subsidies are terrible or how college kids need to get over themselves, Jay Leno has been on point lately.

White House

White House promises not to use legal loophole to keep NSA spying alive if Patriot Act expires
If the Patriot Act expires, it will stop the National Security Agency’s bulk spying too. The Obama administration promised this week that it will not take advantage of a legal loophole to keep the NSA spying alive unless Congress re-authorizes the Patriot Act, Reuters reported. Section 215 of the Patriot Act, which authorizes the NSA to collect data on […]
In honor of National Puppy Day, here are the top 10 cutest presidential puppies

Today is National Puppy Day! To celebrate, we give you the top ten cutest puppies to grace the White House Lawn.

Obama: ‘By hook or by crook’ I’ll push my agenda through
This is probably not the smartest phrasing to use. President Obama had an interview with Huffington Post over the weekend and while much of the interview was his oft-repeated lines about how Republicans are the reason nothing is getting done in Washington, he added a new phrase about his legacy that is bound to raise […]
Obama tells Prince Charles that Americans like the royal family better than their own politicians

President Obama has admitted what we all already knew: Americans far prefer the Duchess of Cambridge to Michelle.

Obama suggested that voting should be mandatory. Now he’s being called ‘totalitarian.’

President Obama is taking some heat for suggesting this week that mandatory voting might not be such a bad idea.

Congress

Sen. Harry Reid will not seek re-election
WASHINGTON (AP) — Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid, the wily Nevadan who dominated the Senate for a decade from the minority to the majority and back again, announced Friday he will retire after five terms. Reid, 75, who shepherded key Obama administration initiatives including the president’s health care law, lost his role as majority leader — […]
Schock: Lincoln faced challenges too
Embattled Rep. Aaron Schock (R- Ill.) gave his farewell speech on the House floor Thursday, promising that it was “not the end of a story, but rather the beginning of a new chapter.” While his own trials are more of the “Downton Abbey” decor and Katy Perry concert variety, Schock likened this tough time to that […]
Boehner, Pelosi read mean tweets
Taking a cue from Jimmy Kimmel’s famous “Mean Tweets” series, House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), Sen Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) got in on the fun and read some mean tweets about themselves in a video for the 2015 Radio & Television Correspondents Association […]
GOP blocks Warren's student loan plan
THE HILL — Senate Republicans on Wednesday blocked an effort by Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) to attach an amendment aimed at lowering student loan rates to the budget. Senators voted 46-53 against Warren’s amendment to the Republican budget resolution. Warren’s amendment would have allowed people with college loan debt to refinance at interest rates from […]
Rand really liked those 'Stand with Rand' trolls

During Ted Cruz's big announcement at Liberty University yesterday--which students were required to attend--some Rand Paul supporters decided to troll Cruz with some "Stand with Rand" shirts: