The people of Kansas and other states have voted to define marriage as the union between one man and one woman. Although 70 percent of Kansans voted for the measure, those opposed have already promised to appeal the voters' decision to the courts.
The question is whether Americans, voting in large numbers to limit marriage to one man and one woman, will be allowed to shape society through the democratic process, or will they be deprived of that right by courts, where judges increasingly ignore the will of voters and impose law by judicial fiat.
When people are allowed to vote on gay marriage, they overwhelmingly reject it. Homosexual rights advocates are undeterred by voters, however, and seek to override marriage amendments in the courts where sympathetic judges have decreed that, despite 2,000 years of Western civilization, which has been wildly successful, there is no good reason for limiting matrimony to a man and a woman.
Will Americans allow Jefferson's "robed oligarchy" to dictate how culture is shaped and permit judges to impose on us their visions of America? Or will we demand that courts reassume their proper role in a representative democracy with equal and divided branches of government?
Paul Daniels
Greensboro
Comments (8)
What if 70% voted right now to once again forbid interracial marriage? Better yet, in today's politically correct society, say, in some place like San Francisco, what if 70% voted to require anyone who wants to marry to marry someone of another race in the name of diversity? The right of the majority, right?
What if 70% voted to take your land away and build a gay and lesbian tolerance center there, Mr. Daniels?
Majority rule is the worst possible thing.
Posted by Paul Elledge | April 13, 2005 6:28 AM
The majority of Americans once favored segregation as well, so if we follow your theory, they should have kept up that practice. Only "Activist" judges upheld the constitution and thankfully recognized EVERYONES right to equal rights. Like Paul said, the majority is not always right, and in many instances it has been extremely wrong.
Posted by k | April 13, 2005 7:50 AM
Mr. Daniels you have been at the radio far too long - your brain is having an "OReily Rush". Turn your radio off remove your head from your posterior and pick up a book, maybe a sixth-grade civics book and you will discover that the founding fathers inserted into the Constitution a Bill Of Rights. This they did to protect the minority in our country from the majority and such evil doers as Tom Delay, Carl Rove and their puppet, Dubya. The Supreme court judges are responsible for the enforcement of the Bill Of Rights, and indeed all questions regarding the constitionality of laws in all of the US. They are not elected and are appointed by the President for life and are responsible only to their own conscience not to Rush Limbaugh, Dubya or to the 70% of Kansans who would discriminate against their gay neighbors. Try reading a book Mr. Daniels and you will come to understand how well our system works to protect all of our civil rights.
Posted by yellowdog | April 13, 2005 8:40 AM
"...despite 2,000 years of Western civilization, which has been wildly successful..."
Did I miss something? Have the media, newspapers, books, the internet and all forms of passing on information been lying to me and the rest of the world? Not in even one form have I ever read or heard that Western civilization has been "wildly successful" with regards to marriage between one man and one woman. Quite the contrary. With the divorce rate in this country exceeding 55%, I would hardly call marriage "wildly successful".
Posted by Yvonne | April 13, 2005 9:17 AM
No where in the Constitution does it say that the Supreme Court, or any other court, is responsible for interpreting the Constitution. This is authority that the Supreme Court usurped for itself in Marbury v. Madison, in which it stated that it was the final arbiter of the law.
Posted by Paul Daniels | April 13, 2005 1:14 PM
Yellowdog,
Actually, the president is responsible for enforcing the laws, not the Supreme Court. That's why he's called the Executive.
And come on. You just completely contradicted your whole argument with this point. You said that the Justices are responsible to their consciences. Please. They're responsible to the CONSTITUTION, not their consciences. If they were responsible only to their consciences, then the law would be completely meaningless. It would mean that if someone's conscience tells him or her that interracial marriage should be illegal, then he/she should vote likewise.
Mr. Daniels.
You make a very interesting point about the Supreme Court's power. I think you're partially right but not completely. The Court's power is pretty vague according to Article III, if you ask me. But my understanding of Article III is the weakest of any section of the Constitution, admittedly.
Posted by Paul Elledge | April 13, 2005 4:19 PM
So Rush is of the opinion that the founding fathers created the Supreme Court, one third of the federal trifecta, to sit behind that great big bar and polish their fancy seats with their black robed behinds. In your world Mr. Daniels, (the great wonderful world of Rush) is their a concept of government checks and balances. If not we're paying the folks on the Supreme court an awful lot of money for --- what? What does Rush say they are supposed to do Mr. Daniels?
Posted by yellowdog | April 13, 2005 4:38 PM
So you're saying that Bush is an evil-doer. Real constructive criticism. And here I was thinking how dumb it was that Bush labeled countries the "axis of evil". Glad stupidity isn't relegated to one party.
Posted by another bigmouth | April 15, 2005 3:57 PM