Same-Sex Marriage: Are the People Sovereign, or is it to be the Courts?
by: Richard Land - Nov 14, 2008 - comments: 8
On Nov. 4, 2008, the people of California, Florida and Arizona joined the ranks of the approximately 30 of the United States that have outlawed same-sex marriage either by amending their respective state constitutions or by passing appropriate legislation.
The three states mentioned above amended their state constitutions by the following margins: California (52%), Arizona (56%) and Florida (62%).
The results in California are causing the most controversy. Why? First, because same-sex marriages were already being performed in that state since June because the California Supreme Court refused to delay their ruling until the people could vote in November. Second, California is a much more liberal state culturally than either Arizona or Florida.
This column originally posted at Casting Stones, a blog hosted by Beliefnet.com.
Now we are witnessing the spectacle of same-sex marriage advocates going before the California Supreme Court in attempts to convince them to overturn the people’s choice to amend their state’s constitution. The legal theory in America and in the states that make up our Union has been that the ultimate authority in the law is the constitution, not the judges’ interpretation of that constitution. When the people disagree with judges’ interpretation of the constitution, both our Federal Constitution and the various state constitutions furnish the people with a way to give the judges further instruction on how they would be governed—the amendment process.
A majority of Californians have exercised that right and have amended their constitution to define marriage with great specificity and precision as being only between a man and a woman—no same-sex marriage and no polygamy. If the California Supreme Court were to now attempt to nullify what the people have chosen to do through an expression of their sovereign will, they will have attempted to usurp the sovereignty of government “of the people, by the people and for the people” and to replace it with government “of the judges, by the judges and for the judges.”
I would urge the members of the California Supreme Court to read the text of the Declaration of Independence with great care, specifically these words:
“That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”
(emphasis added)
If the California Supreme Court does not acknowledge its obligation to submit its collective judgment to a constitutional amendment passed by the people, then the democratic freedom reserved to the sovereignty of the people will have perished in California.
This column originally posted at Casting Stones, a blog hosted by Beliefnet.com.
The Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission works to preserve the institution of marriage and the value of family in the lives of Americans. To learn more about these important issues, additional resources are available here. If your church is interested in purchasing bulletin inserts or other materials on marriage and family, please visit our online bookstore.
Further Learning
Learn more about: Family, Sexual Purity, Homosexuality, Citizenship, , Legislation
8 comments (post your own) feed
1 On Nov 18th, 2008, at 3:33pm, Larry wrote:
Time to exercise our right to recall our Governor and Judges as we did before.
2 On Nov 19th, 2008, at 8:42am, Karen wrote:
Judges must do the moral thing and interpret the law using judicial restraint. Thus, not interpret the law to fit “their own political agenda”. This is self serving and not serving the people. Judges like this must be held accountable or more problems will occur obviously.
3 On Nov 19th, 2008, at 10:18am, Charles Enlow wrote:
The first chief justice of the U.S. Supreme Court arrogantly said “The Constitution is what the judges say it is.” The prerogative of judicial review is itself not in the Constitution; the judges arrogated the power to themselves and no one has challenged them. The proper role of courts - where constitutions are concerned - is to apply the constitutions to laws passed by legislatures. That is, they are to examine laws to interpret their meanings in light of the constitutional language, not to alter the meaning of constitutions to conform to newly-passed laws, to poll results, or to attitudes in a morally and spiritually bankrupt Europe.
Th. Jefferson said that our constitutional system would only work until/unless the judges got the bit in their teeth and took off with our constitutional republic, changing it into something unrecognizable.
4 On Nov 19th, 2008, at 1:22pm, Jed wrote:
Sometimes we’re wrong. Would a popular vote have ended slavery or segregation? I think not.
5 On Nov 20th, 2008, at 10:44am, Brian wrote:
I have to agree with Jed. While I understand the point of the article and agree in some ways, the point remains that the Constitution’s Bill of Rights exists to ensure that the rights of the people are not infringed; in this way, the Constution and the courts work to limit the “tyranny of the majority.” Judicial review exists to ensure that laws conform to our Constitution. Whether or not this specific case is one where a law infringes on basic rights is a debate to be had, but the process of judicial review exists for a very good reason. We would not be so quick to condemn the courts if the people passed a law that denied Christians the right to marry.
6 On Nov 20th, 2008, at 11:31am, Robert wrote:
Jed, you stated/asked, “Sometimes we’re wrong. Would a popular vote have ended slavery or segregation? I think not.”
If the popular vote had been guided by the moral standards of the Word of God; then the answer to your question would be “Yes, the popular vote would have ended these terrible things.”
7 On Nov 21st, 2008, at 9:06am, Karen wrote:
If the moral standards are based on the Word of God then I agree with the popular vote. Sorry, I wasn’t clear here.
8 On Nov 21st, 2008, at 10:00am, Robert wrote:
On Nov 20th, 2008, at 10:44am, Brian wrote:
“…the Constitution’s Bill of Rights exists to ensure that the rights of the people are not infringed; in this way, the Constitution and the courts work to limit the “tyranny of the majority.””
Each and every person’s rights SHOULD be defended. But, what are our rights? Where we are getting sidetracked in this entire matter is the issue of who, or what, determines those rights. It is God who gives us rights, therefore; it is His views that we should seek on these matters. Who created marriage? What did it look like? Do we think we have the right to alter that institution? I love America and would rather live no where else, but; I will only support American values until they conflict with God’s values. I realize that many do not care what the Bible has to say about their life, but that does not mean that those who do care, whether they be the minority or the ‘tyrranical’ majority, should remain silent.