So what if the Courts historic decision discounted history altogether? After all, the institution of marriage predates the law and the Constitution. But who cares if every civilization since the beginning of time has always defined marriage as the union between a man and a woman? Such a restrictive definition undoubtedly does not fit within the bounds of our progressive society. In the name of enlightenment, perhaps the court would be willing to lift all legal limitations on marriage, such as allowing for both heterosexuals and homosexuals to marry children, close blood relatives, people who are already married, and multiple partners.
Its clear that Americas push for progress cannot be trusted to the common man; therefore, new-wave liberalism now declares populous movements passé. All that is needed to correct todays societal ills is a good lawyer and a sympathetic judge. No need for ballot initiatives, grassroots advocacy, or political accountability. Yeah, sure American civil rights activists of the 1960s built up a groundswell of public support, marched by the thousands on Washington, and stormed into Congress demanding that politicians take notice. However, in this age of newfound justice, gay rights activists need do nothing of the sort. They have at their disposal something much more powerful the no hassle, no majority needed, quick fix guarantee of the judicial system.
The bumper sticker slogan takin it to the people, which at one time was used to mobilize millions of Americans, has worn off. In fact, when it comes to deciding many social issues liberals would rather take it away from the people rather than take it to them. Nevermind that 61 percent of Americans are against legalizing gay marriage: the Massachusetts Court ruled oblivious to public opinion. Who cares that 60 percent of Americans are in support of the measures taken by Bush to ensure our nations security? There has to be a judge out there somewhere that disagrees with the Patriot Act. So what if 70 percent of Americans supported banning partial-birth abortions and Congress (which just happens to be what liberals fear the most an elected body) passed it? Bouncing around from court to court until a favorable opinion is rendered is a much better way of making a law.
With its ruling, the Massachusetts Supreme Court made it obvious that they were in the law making business. The four justices arrogantly asserted themselves above our countrys legislative process by hamstringing the states legislators. The Courts opinion shut down the compromise alternative for allowing gay civil unions, and the ruling left legislators no other option but to ratify what the Court demanded, regardless of their constituents feelings. The four renegade justices went further in their ruling than any state has ever gone before. Both state courts in Hawaii and Alaska approved gay marriages, but neither so blatantly undermined the democratic process. Consequently, both states legislatures wound up passing constitutional amendments restricting marriage to heterosexual couples.
If gay rights activists are so convinced that same-sex marriage is the right social policy for Americas future, why, then, arent they out trying to convince Americans of this. If their goal is to go about changing a centuries-old institution, it would seem logical that they would employ the ageless art of democratic persuasion to change their minds. Why then must this social change be delievered through judicial fiat? The truth is that judicial tyranny is the only way activists can impose same-sex marriage as the law of the land. Virtually no major national politician or major political party supports the idea, including all of the Democratic presidential frontrunners. Even liberal progressive icon Howard Dean does not subscribe to the idea. What are activists bound to do if Congress succeeds in trumping the Massachusetts Courts out-of-the-mainstream edict with a national constitutional amendment preserving the sanctity of marriage? Theyll probably react the only way they know how by calling a lawyer.