The Blue Voice

«Home | Next: Breaking News: Al-Zarqawi Killed»

Thursday, June 08, 2006

The Courts Protect the Fabric of Society

Once again the Federal Marriage Amendment crashes and burns. No news there. It was expected to fail. The vote, however, raised a few eyebrows. The Repubos were supposed to finally get over 50 votes this time around. They didn't. The final score was 49 for to 48 against. That's twice this bill hasn't pulled 50 votes in a 100 seat Senate.

I listened to a lot of the debate. The Repubos dusted off the same old tired arguments and hung them out on display while they pranced and danced in their bigotry. And for those of you who don't feel I should be calling those who voted for this disgraceful bill bigots, I remind you that Webster defines a bigot as, "a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices." If the shoe fits...

To sum up the arguments in support of the FMA, I give you this letter to the editor of the Arizona Republic yesterday:

Protecting fabric of society

President Bush was very clear on the marriage-protection-amendment issue Saturday, saying: "An amendment to the Constitution is necessary because activist courts have left our nation with no other choice. The constitutional amendment that the Senate will consider next week would fully protect marriage from being redefined, while leaving state legislatures free to make their own choices in defining legal arrangements other than marriage."

Marriage should be between a man and a woman. The foundation of our society is under assault, while amendment opponents are dodging the issue and suggesting that this country should have 50 different laws defining marriage and that the states should make these decisions concerning initiatives banning same-sex marriages.

The attack on marriage by rogue judges and renegade public officials has congealed a coalition of evangelicals, Catholics, Muslims and Jews to defend marriage by seeking passage of a federal marriage amendment.

This is not about civil rights. It is about defending an institution essential to a stable social order. It is to protect traditional marriage, which is the union of one man and one woman.

- Jack Salley, Mesa

I'm sooooo sick of hearing about "rogue judges, renegade public officials and activist courts." Public officials can't change state law. Neither can a judge. Obviously Mr. Salley and others who use this argument, (including the Bush) know nothing about how our legal system works. I'll try to enlighten them.

The word "activism" means, "a doctrine or practice that emphasizes direct vigorous action especially in support of or opposition to one side of a controversial issue."

Neither judges nor courts can take direct vigorous action on any issue no matter how dearly they may hold it. They can't initialize a case. A court can't do anything until a case is brought to it by a plaintiff. Then the court schedules a date/time for a hearing and a judge is selected. (It might be any judge in the court's system.) If one of the lawyers feel the selected judge might be prejudicial to the case, he (or she) can be withdrawn or the judge might decide to step down on his (her) own.

Only after hearing both sides present their case does the judge make a decision. If either side feels a point of law was unjustly overlooked, the case may be appealed. This can happen right up to the State Supreme Court where a number of judges will then listen and rule on the case (as in the case of the gay marriage ruling in Massachusetts). These judges make rulings based on the case as presented, not according to their personal beliefs. (Politicians do that.) To think that every or even a majority of judges sitting on a State Supreme Court is guilty of grinding a personal ax in regards to gay marriage is wholly preposterous.

If the matter goes to the Supreme Court of the United States, nine judges put in place by various presidents representing both parties can decide to let the matter pass, rule upon it, or take the case before them. Again, both sides will present their whys and wherefores and the judges will make a decision based on the U.S. Constitution.

The fact that judges are not elected but selected by both parties is a good thing. Elected judges are beholding to those that elect them and their partiality could be questioned. Selected judges are supposed to rule impartially, basing their judgements on law rather than on their own belief systems. This is why the Founding Fathers set up our judicial system this way - to keep partisan beliefs and politics out of court decisions - especially at the upper levels of state and federal courts.

As has been pointed out many times, the Supreme Court's ruling on interracial marriage was as unpopular as would be a positive ruling on gay marriage today. Eighty percent of the public were against a white person marrying a black person. There were as many state Constitutional laws against it as there are against gay marriage today (oddly enough mostly by the same states). Yet the court ruled that a person was a person, black or white and that people should be able to marry whom they please in the United States of America. That's the law today.

And if the Supreme Court eventually rules that gays and lesbians are people and ought to be able to marry whomever they please in the United States of America, that will be the law then. And it won't be a matter of judicial activism, it will be a matter of equality and justice for all. The system works.

And it will be the end of this silly argument.

posted at 5:26:00 AM by Marcia Ellen

| +Save/Share | |