Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Calling Richard Epstein and John Yoo, or, if the Supreme Court Legalizes Gay Marriage, How Should We Respond?
Constitutional scholar Robert P. George, writing in First Things:
Dred Scott v. Sandford was the infamous case in which the Supreme Court of the United States, usurping the constitutional authority of the people acting through their elected representatives in Congress, purported to deny the power of the United States to prohibit slavery in the federal territories. It is very much worth recalling that Dred Scott was not just a case about slavery. It was a case about the scope and limits of judicial power. It was a case in which judges, lacking any warrant in the text, structure, logic, or historical understanding of the Constitution, attempted to impose their own favored resolution of a morally charged debate about public policy on the entire nation.
The Supreme Court did it again in 1905 in the case of Lochner v. New York (invalidating a worker protection statute enacted by the state legislature), and then several more times in the Warren Court era, culminating in Roe v. Wade—the Dred Scott decision of our own time. Now we face the prospect of yet another Dred Scott-type decision—this time on the question of marriage. I say that, not because same-sex relationships are the moral equivalent of slavery—they are not—but because five justices seem to be signaling that they will once again legislate from the bench by imposing, without constitutional warrant, their own beliefs about the nature and proper definition of marriage on the entire country.
If that happens, the Republican Party, the Republican Congress, and a future Republican President should regard and treat the decision just as the Republican Party, the Republican Congress, and the Republican President—Abraham Lincoln—regarded and treated the Dred Scott decision. They should, in other words, treat it as an anti-constitutional and illegitimate ruling in which the judiciary has attempted to usurp the authority of the people and their elected representatives.
An unconstitutional and illegitimate ruling.
That sounds about right to me. Richard Epstein? John Yoo? How does it sound to you?
Published in Law, Marriage
But this is a “hill to die on”, I think, because what is at stake is freedom of thought.
That’s it, right there.
I have real trouble understanding that claim as anything other than hyperventilating hyperbole. How, exactly, does allowing me to get married deny you freedom of thought?
This reasoning is so very odd to me.
Polygamy has a much longer history and has been accepted in more cultures than gay marriage, which the day before yesterday (the early 90’s) was not even supported by a majority of homosexuals.
It is like saying that the most distinguishing characteristic of a car is that it has four wheels and not 3 or 6 or any other number. The distinguishing characteristic of a car is that it is designed to move people from point A to point B.
The main argument that the anti-SSM crowd is using nowadays is that the purpose of marriage is about state and religiously sanctioned procreation and child rearing. For that purpose, polygamy is much more suited than SSM.
If there is anything that “conservatives” should agree on, it is that major changes to important social institutions should not be adopted based on short-term trends in public opinion. OK, there is something that “conservatives” should agree on even more: that major changes to important social institutions should not be imposed by unelected judges who feel empowered by short-term trends in public opinion.
This is one of the major reason for the system of checks and balances in both the federal Constitution, and the constitutions of the states.
Let’s all try to remember that, just 7 years ago in 2008:
There has been short-term public support for all sorts of ideas, some good, many bad. Eugenics once seemed to be the wave of the future. There was widespread public support for banning the teaching of Darwin’s theory. The government prosecuted socialists during WWI and interned thousands of Americans of Japanese descent in WWII. In the 60s, there was talk of imposing a national minimum income by judicial fiat under the due process clause, and political talk of the same concept via the “negative income tax.”
It is a totalitarian, leftist tactic to enshrine policy preferences in constitutional law whenever they achieve a temporary majority on the Supreme Court. Frankly, I find it appalling that the leftists have 4 Supreme Court votes in the bag on this one, as I think that the Constitutional argument is absurdly weak from an originalist perspective, which ought to be the typical (if not exclusive) “conservative” method of constitutional interpretation.
Try to imagine that red was legally declared to be the same color as blue, and everyone knew red was a different color but, legally, they were both blue and you had to call them both blue. Schoolchildren were reprimanded if their parents had taught them red was a different color than blue. That’s denial of freedom of thought. Being forced to live every day as if something you know is a lie, is true.
Well first, I just won’t have that problem, because what you insist is a lie, I think is the truth.
But putting that aside, when exactly did Big Brother drag you into Room 101 and start forcing you to think things you don’t think? I just don’t buy the claim that anybody’s being forced to think anything. In fact it’s more than I don’t buy it. I know full well it’s — to use my charitable term — hyperbole — to be more frank — BS.
You’re not a good judge in this case.
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2013/08/22/new-mexico-court-christian-photographer-cannot-refuse-gay-marriage-ceremony-next-stop-u-s-supreme-court/
Why don’t you ask Elane Huguenin for her thoughts on the subject?
Gee thanks. There’s a new one. I would never have heard of her if you hadn’t brought her up. Unless they have legally redefined the word “photograph” to mean “think,” however, I don’t see your point.
Neither are you.
Cato, you’re up against the endless persecution complex of the anti-SSM crowd, and their utter conviction that it’s back to the catacombs because they lost this one.
SoCons, carry on. Think what you like, say what you like. Just don’t kid yourselves about the reality: you’re sitting alone in a stadium hours after the game was played. The moon is rising and the sweepers are coming in to clean the place for the next game. Time to head home.
Yes. More broadly, I had two points. First, sometimes the ratchet turns backwards after all. Second, isn’t it a bit suggestive that so many countries accept SSM at the same moment they stop investing in the future via making babies? Decadence will often manifest in multiple ways, and decay is is own kind of change, leading to other changes, mostly undesirable.
Fredosphere, do the math. There were as many gays in the world before SSM as now. They have an infinitesmal effect on the birth rate, and in any case, as SoCons point out tirelessly, they didn’t reporduce in the old days and don’t reproduce now, so how does SSM have anything whatever to do with a dropping birth rate?
Hasn’t that ship already sailed? Republicans will already go down in history as the party that fought tooth-and-nail against SSM, and the history books will tell of another glorious victory over the evil forces of conservatism. No doubt there will one day be a reboot of Inherit the Wind with the subject of the trial changed from evolution to SSM.
Besides as you say the GOP is routinely accused of racism, sexism, and xenophobia regardless of the facts. I’m confident we’ll still be routinely branded homophobic 20 years from now no matter what position we take on SSM.
Just wait until these guys move to the U.S. and hire a good lawyer.
Wouldn’t marriage be nationalized by virtue of a SCOTUS ruling in favor of homosexual marriage a la abortion?
It would simply have the effect of requiring that all states allow SSM. It’s actually just a less complicated issue than abortion — with its trimesters and the various medical issues that are still subject to state regulation etc. It’s almost certain that this will be relatively clean, and not interfere with state marriage law beyond mandating that it extend to same sex couples.
Any attempt by the states to reclaim their rightful role in our system of government must first be prefaced by their reclaiming the right to defend themselves against a tyrannical federal government. The governors who would take the path of Prof. George better be prepared to construct state militias that are under their sole authority, and they must be willing to fight as one instead of separate entities. The Federal government led by a Leftist culture in DC will not relent when it comes to their social agenda being denied. On a very serious level, these governors will have to have armies willing to kill other Americans.
Right I see your point, but would this not negate the states’ ability to define who does and does not get to have a state issued marriage license and thus, nationalize it? In other words would a pro-homosexual marriage ruling necessitate the eventual issuing of federal marriage licenses?
Gary hold on to your socks and pull: I totally agree with this. European countries that have legalized homosexual marriage had dismal birth rates prior to SSM. Italy is a great example of this with their Total Fertility Rate somewhere in around 1.1 child per couple. Mark Steyn has pointed out that in Italy there are more grandparents now than there are grandchildren. Japan is another such country with similar demographic woes. SSM has absolutely nothing to do with falling birthrates.
No. Almost certainly not. The expected ruling will simply require that states issue marriage licenses to same sex couples on the same basis they issue them to opposite sex couples. I mean, nothing is impossible at some point, but there’s no reason for a federal license, and no likelihood of one, in the foreseeable future.
Um, ok. There’s a pleasant thought to go to sleep on. Isn’t repealing the 17th amendment both more likely and less drastic than — let’s face it — civil war?
That sounds reasonable enough. Thanks for the explanation.
I hate to put it in such drastic terms but we are talking reality here. The reality is this: marriage, in terms of government involvement, has traditionally been a state issue. As per the 9th and 10th amendments, this would be perfectly fine in our system of government. If Prof. George’s desire to see a SCOTUS ruling ignored by the states is to become reality, these states will have to be able to fend off an eventual use of military force by the DC establishment to impose the ruling. Therefore, they will need to raise their own state armies. There are three things I see as GOING to happen in this scenario painted by PRob: 1) SCOTUS is going to rule in favor of homosexual marriage 2) DC WILL impose this ruling on resisting states 3) that means military style deployments by federal forces into state municipalities. All I am saying is that if states are going to take this to its logical conclusion under these circumstances, they better be prepared to defend themselves.
Fair enough if you’re playing out a thought experiment. I personally don’t expect it to come to that.
I’ll do you one better: I HOPE it doesn’t come to that. Americans are funny people. They are the nicest people on the planet until they feel painted into a corner. I fear at some point enough Americans are going to feel that way and start fighting one way or another.
It stems from attitudes which decouple sex and child rearing. A society which looses interest in children will simultaneously change its attitude about gay relationships–and to be fair, they’re being logically consistent by doing so–and will, perversely, lose its ability to make the resulting cultural change an enduring one.
I disagree. They are plainly connected, but one does not cause the other. Rather, SSM and falling birthrates both result from the same underlying cause, which is the rise of the modern leftist/secular humanist/atheistic materialist/moral relativist world view.
It is frustrating that we don’t even have a good, non-Orwellian name for this world view. In the US, its gone from “Progressive” to “Liberal” and now back to “Progressive,” though this world view is generally antithetical to both progress and liberty. Indeed, we didn’t even have a good word to describe the deceptiveness of this doctrine until Orwell, who was initially a devotee, recognized it and illustrated it so compellingly in 1984.
Oh, sorry. You’re right. She’s allowed to think what she wants, she’s just not allowed to express that belief or act on it without losing her business. Totally different.
Look, I’m not defending what happened to her, but I’m sick of the hyperbole. She wasn’t prohibited from expressing her belief either. She was required to provide the service she’s in the business to provide without discrimination.