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

Michael Bay might direct Benghazi movie

Bay, who has spent the last several years gaining popularity for his "Transformers" films, is reportedly in talks to direct the Benghazi film "13 Hours," according to the Hollywood Reporter.

Holder wants Denzel to play him in movie

Holder spoke to The Hill about Hollywood and politics while at an event at the Washington Ideas Forum Wednesday that was hosted by The Aspen Institute and The Atlantic.

'Rival Survival' premiering Wednesday

Senators Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) and Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.) are getting ready to show America their bipartisan fire-starting skills on "Rival Survival," a reality show starring tho lawmakers that premiers Wednesday night on the Discovery Channel.

Lovitz has a field day with Hillary

Before Hillary Clinton's jobs comment is swept aside as a minor whoopsie, a few words from Jon Lovitz.

John Oliver has some ideas for the FDA

Some people want more nutrition information on food labels--but who really understands those labels anyway?

White House

Russian hackers broke into the White House network

Hackers with suspected ties to the Russian government recently broke into the White House’s unclassified computer network, the Washington Post reported Tuesday night.

Obama is withholding over 15,000 Fast and Furious documents

President Obama claimed executive privilege to withhold over 15,000 documents relating to Operation Fast and Furious, including nearly 20 emails sent between Attorney General Eric Holder and his wife.

White House fence jumper charged with assault
WASHINGTON (AP) — The 23-year-old Maryland man who climbed over the White House fence Wednesday night has been charged with felonies for assaulting two police dogs and making threats, the Secret Service said Thursday. Dominic Adesanya of Bel Air, Maryland, is in custody of the U.S. Marshals Service for previous outstanding warrants, Secret Service spokesman Brian Leary said. […]
President Obama, unpaid bills and the curious editing of the White House transcript
President Obama, some unpaid bills and a curiously “inaudible” section of the White House recording of a speech — that’s how all good stories start, right? While at a Democratic National Committee fundraiser in Chicago, Obama cracked a joke about the “unpaid bills” at his home. The joke was reported by the White House Press […]
Secrecy shrouds how the Obamas cook their chicken wings

Now it seems the Obamas are tight-lipped even about their eating habits.

Congress

Justin Amash envisions a libertarian Congress

Rep. Justin Amash, the libertarian congressman from Michigan, knows that Congress is far from libertarian. But someday, he thinks that might change.

Rand Paul: The GOP's image ‘sucks’

Rand Paul didn’t mince words about the GOP.

Small college's students thrown into 2014 election

Young people tend not to engage much in the humdrum local politics that go into midterm elections. But what if it’s happening literally in their own backyard?

GOP senator: 'Sorry the government's so f***ed'

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) made some self-deprecating jokes and colorful remarks about the state of the government during a recent private gathering, per a recording provided to CNN by South Carolina Democrats.

Top lawmaker's Ebola claim

A leading House Republican says he is aware of information that points to the United States eventually receiving non-U.S. Ebola patients for treatment.