Once again, the Supreme Court failed to exercise “judicial restraint” and opted to actively legislate from the bench by deciding that homosexuals have a “right” to marry in the case of Obergefell v. Hodges. Five unelected lawyers decided to do away with our democratic process and power of our legislatures and redefine the word “marriage” held for millennia – with simply a key stroke. I had no problem with the decision made by the voters of my state of Washingtonwhen it legalized same-sex marriage. I had an opportunity to voice my opinion and, of course, it was no surprise that the referendum passed. But, I was entitled to voice my opinion and, yet, the Supreme Court silenced millions of other voters last week.
Surprisingly, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, part of the majority in Obergefell, said – just two years – in criticizing the decision in Roe v. Wade, “a more restrained judgment would have sent a message while allowing momentum to build at a time when a number of states were expanding abortion rights. She added that it might also have denied opponents the argument that abortion rights resulted from an undemocratic process in the decision by ‘unelected old men.’” It’s really a shame she didn’t follow her own advice in deciding Obergefell.
In my opinion, having read the 28-page opinion together with all four dissenting opinions, the majority opinion is long on sentiment and short on law. If it were a song, I’d label it “German schlager music.” I can’t ever remember reading such a sentimental touchy-feely opinion in my entire time in law school and almost 25 years of practicing appellate law. I would defy anyone to show me where in the Constitution are the words “loneliness,” “commitment,” “fidelity,” “love,” “devotion,” or “dignity” – although I didn’t see too much dignity at the recent Seattle gay pride parade amid the thongs, gold lame’, stiletto heels, and make-up worn by the male participants.
And, sincerely, with all due respect to Bernie, who I greatly admire and who provides me with an opportunity to speak my mind here, the case of Loving v. Virginia involving an interracial couple having the right to marry and similar cases cited by the Supremes, all assumed the marriages were between a man and a woman. The Court was asked to decide who could marry and was never asked to change the definition of marriage. Big difference.
For now, the subject is closed. However, the proponents of gay rights will not be satisfied with this recent decision. There’s no doubt in my mind that they’ll start attacking the First Amendment by demanding Church weddings. I hope the religious institutions in this country – churches, synagogues and mosques — are saving their pennies because I predict a whole bunch of lawsuits coming down the pike in the next ten years.
That being said, can we now move on to really important issues. Can all the Republican hopefuls stop talking about gay marriage now that the Supremes have spoken. it’s a done deal. Let’s move on. Nothing you say, hopefuls, can make you look good at this point.
And, more importantly, can the press stop asking ridiculously inane gotcha questions of the Republicans. I’m not interested if Carly Fiorina will attend her gay cousin’s bridal shower. I’m also not interested if Lindsey Graham would be his cousin’s best man when he marries his boyfriend. I don’t care. I’m not interested. I just wish the press, back in 2008, had inquired of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama what they would’ve done in similar situations, when they both believed that marriage was between a man and a woman. You know that was never going to happen. But it is truly amazing how they weren’t viewed as “stodgy” or “old-fashioned”, “or out of touch”, “or on the wrong side of history” just three years ago when it became politically correct to change their opinions.
But as I said, there are far more important issues facing our Nation and I’d like to hear from Republicans and Hillary Clinton alike what they plan to do about ISIS, the $18 trillion debt we face, revision of the Tax Code, the economy, oil dependency, illegal immigration, Vladmir Putin, nuclear weapons for Iran, the U.S.’s relationship with Israel and China.
I’d also like to know if we’ll ever get the real story behind the Benghazi attacks from Mrs. Clinton, whether the FBI will launch an investigation and acquire access to her servers and look into her financials and those of the Clinton Foundation and how all those donations from foreign governments came about and was there a quid pro quo attached to any of them. But, on the other hand, none of these issues surrounding Mrs. Clinton will mean anything. The electorate was hell-bent on getting a half-Black man in the White House, albeit unqualified on every level, and they’ll be hell-bent getting a woman in this time around. No matter what she says or does, Mrs. Clinton is Teflon-coated and we’ll be stuck with her for eight years unless, of course, she murders Bill Clinton….but only if it’s caught on tape. But even then….
Whether you like the gay marriage decision or not, everyone should consider the words of Justice Samuel Alito in his dissent: “But all Americans, whatever their thinking on that issue, should worry about what the majority’s claim of power portends.”