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

Obama: LeBron 'did the right thing'

President Obama supports LeBron James' decision to wear an "I can't breathe" t-shirt during warmup before the NBA game between the Cleveland Cavaliers and Brooklyn Nets last week.

Al Sharpton, Hollywood's Sony Liaison

In a private meeting with Rev. Al Sharpton at the Greenwich Hotel in New York City Thursday, Sony Pictures chair Amy Pascal told Sharpton that he could have a voice in how the movie studio makes its films.

Clooney: Release 'The Interview' online

George Clooney may have the most awesomely toothy response to the Sony Pictures cyberattack that forced the movie studio to pull the film "The Interview" from its December 25 release.

Jon Stewart might ruin your childhood

Jon Stewart brought his nightmare-inducing recurring character “Gitmo” on the show to talk about the normalization of U.S. relations with Cuba.

Colbert's embargo on the Vatican

Colbert had to chide his audience Wednesday night for getting excited about making “Cuba more libre.”

White House

Obama: we can’t have censorship subject to ‘some dictator someplace’

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Barack Obama declared Friday that Sony "made a mistake" in shelving a satirical film about a plot to assassinate North Korea's leader, and he pledged the U.S. would respond "in a place and manner and time that we choose" to the hacking attack on Sony that led to the withdrawal. The FBI blamed the hack on the communist government.

U.S. confirms North Korea was behind Sony attack and promises ‘proportional’ response

Officials no longer merely suspect North Korea to be behind the cyberattack on Sony Picture—they’ve confirmed it.

District court declares Obama’s executive action on immigration unconstitutional
A federal court in Pennsylvania declared parts of President Obama’s executive actions on immigration unconstitutional Tuesday. Judge Arthur J. Schwab, sitting in the western district of Pennsylvania, said presidents do have the power to use discretion in deciding how to enforce laws, but found that Obama’s recent executive action went much further than that.  He said Obama was writing […]
Obama administration extends Pell grants to juvenile offenders
The Obama administration has set out new guidelines that allow for students sentenced to juvenile correctional facilities to be eligible for federal Pell grants. The U.S. Department of Education and Department of Justice sent out a joint release Monday that clarified an earlier law. Congress in 1994 prohibited inmates at federal and state prisons from receiving Pell Grants […]
White House denies report that it wants to delay release of CIA torture report

The White House is insisting it wants the Senate Intelligence Committee to release its report on CIA torture practices, despite a report that Secretary of State John Kerry is trying to scuttle it.

Congress

Rubio says Rand Paul is clueless on Cuba

Sen. Marco Rubio made his criticism of a fellow Republican plain Thursday night.

Gowdy's office responds to Speaker chatter

Rep. Trey Gowdy has become a sensation on the Right, with his no-nonsense style and committee hearing takedowns of Obama officials garnering him praise and attention.

Rand Paul: 'Opening up Cuba is a good idea'

Sen. Rand Paul broke with the Republican Party's prevailing argument against President Obama's Cuba policy Thursday, saying the move toward opening trade with the long-embargoed nation "probably" is a good idea.

Retiring DemHenry Waxman's farewell ode to govt

You'd think that, 40 years in, a congressman might grow cynical about the prospects of government meddling. Not retiring Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.)!

Senate Confirms Pro-Gun Control Surgeon General
NATIONAL JOURNAL — The Senate narrowly confirmed a new surgeon general whose nomination was delayed for months in a fight over his comments alleging that guns are a public health issue. The confirmation represents a victory for gun-control advocates, even as recent polling has shown Americans moving in the other direction toward gun-rights protections. The […]