I'm a live-and-let-live kind of person. Do what you want, as long as you're not interfering with what I like to do and not harming me or some innocent person. Nevertheless, when my state had a ballot initiative defining marriage as solely between one man and one woman, I voted for it, not because I hate homosexuals, but because that is what marriage is. We are already seeing the consequences of allowing marriage to be, not redefined, but defined away. The destruction of a Christian's bakery business at the hands of the gay gestapo is one example.
I would argue that marriage has long been under siege from no-fault divorce laws. Adultery has always been a problem. People do not take their vows seriously as it is. Turning marriage into a joke and a sideshow is not going to help. Marriage is the basic institution upon which a stable and civilized society is built. Destroy marriage and family and you rend the fabric that binds us.
State after state decided, a few years ago, that it would be good to codify the definition of marriage. By overwhelming majorities of the popular vote in most states, this was done. Then courts stepped in and began to unravel those democratically endorsed amendments. Federal courts have overturned defense of marriage acts, and the Supreme Court has decided not to hear appeals thus allowing the refutations to stand.
So, that's the end of it, right? If the Supreme Court says something is unconstitutional, that's it.
Actually, that is not how it is meant to be. Pat Buchanan quotes Jefferson in saying ... to cede such authority to the Supreme Court “would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy.” Was he not right?
Buchanan, not someone with whom I always agree, goes on to talk about Supreme Court decisions that have secularized our schools and other public institutions without much more than a whimper from the American people.
I basically have two reasons for not wanting a Democrat president: gun control and Supreme Court nominations. Like most, I have gotten used to the idea that nine people in black robes are the final arbiters of right and wrong. Buchanan denies that this is correct:
Each branch of government, wrote Jefferson, is “independent of the others and has an equal right to decide for itself what is the meaning of the Constitution in the cases submitted to its action.”
“No branch has the absolute or final power to control the others, especially an unelected judiciary,” added Quirk.
Congress has the power to remove cases from judicial review. Buchanan's friend, the late William Quirk advocated this:
When Congress enacted the Defense of Marriage Act, Bill Quirk urged it to utilize Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution, and write in a provision stripping the Supreme Court of any right to review the act.A Republican-controlled House and Senate with sufficient libertarian sympathies could restrict the power of the Judicial Branch to legislate from the bench. I'm sure the Executive Branch and federal judges would kick and scream, but that's the way it is supposed to work.
We have serious and growing problems in this country. The federal government is far too massive and powerful for liberty-minded people. There is more and more talk about a break up of the United States and secession. If sufficient numbers of people become sufficiently dissatisfied with the federal government's bureaucratic overreach and corruption, the politicization of the IRS, the militarization of various departments from Homeland Security to Education, and the inability of the government to control the borders and protect citizens from terror and health risks, secession may become a viable option.
In the mean time, we ought to fight against judicial tyranny with every possible tool, and one of the best tools is encourage Congress to restrict the Court's right of review on sensible measures.
UPDATE: On the whole gay marriage thing, Gay Patriot suggests the slope might be a little slippery after all.