Printer friendly version

May 17, 2004

Crossing the Rubicon Down the Aisle

Well, today, courtesy of four judges and a gavel, same-sex marriage arrives in Massachusetts. The fires that are about to crop up across the nation's various government bodies and across our culture and society are too broad and varied to guess. We'll just have to keep an eye out for them.

The question of the day: will the sparks be enough to wake America up to what's happening? Or will we just roll over and cover ourselves with a blanket of apathy? One thing we can expect is a surge of commentary declaring, "See! Nothing happened!" As if social corrosion were an instant phenomenon. I wondered, as I walked the dog, this morning, what will win the race: nationalized SSM, evidence of its effects, or the 2010 census.

Be that outcome as it may, we can also expect the elite — with its perhaps insurmountable power via judges and media — to move on to the next issue that it's inclined to push through. Will it be further loosening of restrictions, or are the bien-pensant prepared to begin tightening the screws on their nemeses? Yet another thing that we can only wait to discover. For our part, on the conservative and traditionalist side, even as we keep up the struggle to win this particular battle, we should start looking for other ways to minimize damage, such as hardened divorce and adultery laws.

Reading accounts of same-sex couples waiting in line in the middle of the night, it really came home to me how difficult an issue this is to address. As with any issue, the people involved are mostly just going along with their lives, strolling off the path rather than charging. Chasing them with angry words will drive them further into the thicket, but neither can we fail in our duty to attempt to draw them back.

It was a bit of surprise to discover this little-cited passage in the first reading that happened to fall yesterday in the cycle at Mass:

'It is the decision of the Holy Spirit and of us not to place on you any burden beyond these necessities,
namely, to abstain from meat sacrificed to idols,
from blood, from meats of strangled animals,
and from unlawful marriage.
If you keep free of these,
you will be doing what is right. Farewell.'

I don't think the Massachusetts judiciary is meant to be the judge of what is "unlawful" in this context.

Posted by Justin Katz at May 17, 2004 7:16 AM
Marriage & Family
Comments

Our current system of government assumes that judges will be honorable people who will respect the will of the citizenry. With SSM, it's becoming increasingly obvious that we can't assume that any more. I suggest an amendment to the federal constitution, with similar amendments for the state constitutions:

"On a two-thirds vote of both houses, the Congress may remove any federal judge from office, and may vacate any decision of any federal court."

It's radical, I know. But the situation is pretty extreme with SSM. The judicial corruption is not limited to personal gain, nor is it limited to obscure subjects that bore the public. It's a direct attack on the idea that the people are entitled to choose their own laws. We have to put control of the government back in the hands of the people.

Posted by: Ben Bateman at May 17, 2004 11:17 AM

Dear Ben: On the surface of it, it's not a bad idea, but do you really think you can get 66% of senators to vote to remove a revisionist judge when we can't get 60% to close a filibuster on a judicial nomination. Those judges you and I would like to remove, are the ones who passed the liberal litmus test.

Posted by: Mike O at May 17, 2004 11:50 AM

Mike: The battle to confirm judges is difficult for most people to understand. It would be easier to muster votes after the fact, in response to a specific decision.

Besides which, the mere existence of a credible threat could do much to remind judges that they work for the people. My impression is that the judges who do this kind of thing are political amateurs. Why else would they ignite this issue right before the election? They are bold only because they know that there is no formal mechanism in place that can reach them. Conscience was supposed to do the job, and it isn't working.

We can argue particulars, but one way or another we need a mechanism for the executive or legislative branches to restrain the judiciary. A marriage-specific response to SSM is not enough.

Posted by: Ben Bateman at May 17, 2004 1:01 PM

Ben,

I agree with you for the most part, but I think in the larger picture, a marriage-specific response is enough of a rebuff to the judiciary, particularly if it is accompanied by actions to return the nomination process to some semblance of what it was intended to be.

Of course, with all of these possibilities, we run into the corresponding problem to our overbearing judiciary: spineless legislators. I still have some faith in the American people, however, to find the sort of men and women whom we need just as their presence in government becomes critical.

Posted by: Justin Katz at May 18, 2004 10:41 PM