Sometimes people protest decisions by the nation’s courts. Other times people praise them. Recent decisions around the issue of same-sex “marriage” illustrate both tendencies.
On Aug. 4, the courts took a popular pounding. That day a Washington superior court judge declared Washington state’s Defense of Marriage Act, adopted in 1998, unconstitutional. The Defense of Marriage Act declares that marriage is a union between one man and one woman and prohibits marriage licenses being issued to same-sex couples.
King County Superior Court Judge William Downing wrote, “The Court concludes that the exclusion of same-sex partners from civil marriage and the privileges attendant thereto is not rationally related to any legitimate or compelling state interest and is certainly not narrowly tailored toward such an interest.”
That ruling made the King County court the first court in the nation to overrule a Defense of Marriage Act, which has been adopted by 38 states.
Homosexual advocates declared the ruling a “huge victory and a historic day.” Opponents panned the court saying, “Mainstream America doesn’t want to see marriage destroyed by changing the foundational institution of our society.”
Before Judge Downing’s decision can be implemented, it too must be reviewed by the courts. In this case, the Washington state Supreme Court. Thus, the final outcome of the case remains in doubt.
On Aug. 12, it was the homosexual advocates that cursed the courts and the traditional marriage champions that praised them. On that day, the California Supreme Court ruled by a 7–0 vote that San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom violated his authority when he ordered marriage licenses be given to same-sex couples.
By a 5–2 vote, the court voided all 4,000 same-sex ceremonies performed in San Francisco under the mayor’s direction.
Pro-family groups said the ruling is another example that “same-sex ‘marriage’ is not inevitable. … This is exactly what we had hoped for.” Homosexual activists lamented the court addressed the validity of the licenses issued, something the activists contended the Supreme Court did not have to do. Both cases illustrate the principle of judicial review, a vital part of the nation’s legal system.
In the California case, an elected official attempted to impose his personal opinions and beliefs on the public. In former days, such actions would be called tyranny. Chief Justice Robert M. George declared that if all public officials in the state enforced the laws based solely on their personal beliefs, “the enforcement of statutes would become haphazard” and would lead to “confusion and chaos.”
George added, “Granting every public official the authority to disregard a ministerial statutory duty on the basis of the official’s opinion that the statute is unconstitutional would be fundamentally inconsistent with our political system’s commitment to John Adams’ vision of a government where official action is determined not by the opinion of the individual officeholder — but by the rule of law.”
In a government ruled by law, every official sits under that rule. None is above it. In this nation we have seen presidents and governors and mayors forced to conform to the rule of law. We have seen pastors and churches and charities, and even the courts, forced to conform to the rule of law. No institution, no office, no person is above the rule of law.
The first case argues over discrimination. Can the law discriminate against a minority? Judicial review is a safeguard to prevent the majority from trampling on the rights and privileges of citizenship guaranteed under the United States Constitution and the constitutions of the several states.
In the Washington case, we personally believe the court erred in its decision and hope the state Supreme Court will overturn the superior court ruling. Still, the principle of judicial review is vital. Without it, minorities, including religious minorities, could easily find their basic human rights violated by the pressure of the majority.
The two cases illustrate another need, the need for the Federal Marriage Amendment. The process of judicial review means that state laws, even amendments to state constitutions, are not the final answer to the issue of marriage being the union of one man and one woman. Judicial review means that without passage of the Federal Marriage Amendment, the issue is always in question. In fact, a federal case has already been filed seeking to force all states to recognize a same-sex union in Massachusetts as marriage. Homosexual advocates hope judicial review will win for them what they cannot win from the public.
Leaders in the United States House of Representatives have promised a vote on the Federal Marriage Amendment before the House recesses for the November elections. The issue of an amendment to the U.S. Constitution is not dead, as some contend. It is still very much alive.
Because of the important principle of judicial review, adding the wording of the Federal Marriage Amendment to the United States Constitution is the only way to guarantee that marriage in this nation is and always will be between one man and one woman.
Share with others: