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

WH wants climate change 'Frozen' spinoff
Sorry, Anna. That snowman might not be possible in the new, evil, climate change-wrecked world of the Obama administration’s “Frozen” spinoff. According to The Hill, a State Department official recently met with Disney to discuss the idea of using “Frozen’s” characters to teach children about the impact of global warming on the polar bear. Robert Papp, […]
Dylan: 'Gov. not going to create jobs'
Bob Dylan’s latest quote is music to a conservative’s ears. Dylan gave an interview this week to AARP The Magazine to promote his new record “Shadows in the Night,” but that somehow led into some wise words on the government and job creation. “As long as there’s suffering, you can only be so happy. How can […]
Kid Rock tells off Michael Moore

Amid the chorus of protest raining upon Michael Moore (and to a lesser extent, Seth Rogen) -- veterans, country stars, the general public -- Kid Rock may have sounded the loudest note of all.

Stewart bashes GOP 2016 field

Stewart is pretty dismayed by all the “fresh new faces 2016 has in store for us.” Like Mitt Romney, “the once and future not-president.”

Fallon's SOTU pros and cons list

Jimmy Fallon helpfully compiled a pros and cons list from last night's State of the Union Address.

White House

WH chief of staff blurts out previously-concealed name of American hostage on live TV

All in a day's work at the White House: sometimes you keep ISIS hostage names a secret, sometimes you let them slip in an in interview on national TV.

7 Times Obama was ‘Partisan,’ Not ‘Practical’ during his State of the Union address
Near the beginning of his State of the Union address Tuesday night, President Obama promised to be “practical, not partisan” in his proposals to Congress. However, his speech ended up being anything but. From cracking jokes to outright veto threats, it was clear that the president had no interest in bipartisanship. So we decided to […]
Obama has been reminding Republicans ‘I won’ for 2,189 days

President Obama trotted out one of his favorite talking points against Republicans yet again Tuesday night, reminding the opposition party that "I won."

Republican businesswoman Carly Fiorina challenges WH hypocrisy on equal pay for women

Carly Fiorina, the first woman to run a Fortune 20 company and former Republican Senate nominee in California, took on Obama adviser Valerie Jarrett on MSNBC’s Morning Joe, telling Jarrett she is “struck” by the White House’s failure to live up to its own standards for pay equity for their staff.

Obama fails to mention $60B price tag of his ‘free’ community college proposal in State of the Union address
President Obama was quick to tout his grand idea of “free” community college during his State of the Union address Tuesday night, all while ignoring the actual cost of the program on American taxpayers. “By the end of this decade, two in three job openings will require some higher education — two in three.  And yet, […]

Congress

Senate surpasses its 2014 vote total in a week
Is this what the Senate looks like without Harry Reid in charge? The new Republican-led Senate has already voted on more amendments in just one week than the Democratic-controlled Senate voted on in all of 2014. “We’ve actually reached a milestone here that I think is noteworthy for the Senate. We just cast our 15th roll-call vote […]
Whistleblowers denounce DOJ juvenile program

According to whistleblower reports, a Justice Department (DOJ) juvenile delinquency program provided grants to states jailing foster children and runaways over minor offenses like skipping school.

Gohmert: Obama 'divisive on the issue of race'

There’s a reason reporters clamored around former-House-Speaker-candidate Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Tex.) at the State of the Union like this:

Rand Paul slams SOTU’s ‘lack of sincerity’ on NSA

Senator Rand Paul spent Wednesday morning blasting Obama’s State of the Union address, telling a roomful of conservatives at the Capitol Hill Club that “Some of the stuff, frankly, was difficult to even listen to and keep a straight face.”

Alexander: Obama ignored American people in SOTU
Sen. Lamar Alexander (R – Tenn.) hit the nail on the head in his response to President Obama’s State of the Union address Tuesday night. “I think the President ought to give two state of the union addresses. We pretty well heard the first one, the one with things Congress wouldn’t ever do. We need […]