Congressman Cox in a WSJ op-ed: The Marriage Amendment Is a Terrible Idea

[question everything]

The Marriage Amendment Is a Terrible Idea

By CHRISTOPHER COX
September 28, 2004; Page A22

(snip)

Judicial activism, not its instantiation as court-ordered gay marriage, is the more severe challenge to America. As a response to the disease of judicial activism, the FMA would be a cure far worse than the ailment, one that would give judges new, as-yet-undefined text with which to justify their proclivities. It would vastly expand the scope of judicial policy-making not only in family law, but related areas as well, inviting the very judicial activism its authors seek to derail.

To understand why requires a study of how proponents of gay marriage have gone about their objective. Nearly two-thirds of Americans oppose gay marriage. No legislature in any of the 56 states and territories has established it in statute... Faced with this overwhelming political resistance, gay marriage proponents pursued undemocratic means. They turned to the courts. In Hawaii in 1993, the state Supreme Court ruled in favor of same-sex marriage and ordered the issue back to the legislature. Courts in Alaska followed Hawaii's lead. In both states, however, the court decisions led to the adoption of constitutional amendments limiting marriage to heterosexual couples. And in California, after San Francisco began to issue unauthorized licenses for same-sex marriages in February of this year, the state supreme court stopped the practice. But the essence of forum-shopping is that eventually plaintiffs can find a sympathetic venue -- and they found one in Massachusetts.

(snip)

Like all elaborate frauds, this one was built around a kernel of truth: It is true that our constitutions protect minority as well as majority rights. Obeying the will of the majority, therefore, is not what judges invariably ought to do. An example of this contra-majoritarian imperative is Brown v. Board of Education, written by a three-term Republican governor of California and 1948 GOP nominee for vice president, who knew how to read opinion polls and thus understood the firestorm he was creating in the South... The Massachusetts justices admitted that "the Legislature did not intend that same-sex couples be licensed to marry," and that state law "may not be construed to permit same-sex couples to marry." To move from this simple truth to the complex error of the court's conclusion required sophistry -- including the obligatory allusion to the 14th Amendment, granting citizens equal protection of the law. Perhaps efforts such as these are due a grudging respect, if only for their audacity. After all, the sparse wording of the 14th Amendment has been examined for hidden meaning over a long period: one might think the possibilities have been nearly exhausted. But the judicial imagination continues to thrive.

(snip)

The Supreme Court has frequently opined that the regulation of domestic relations "has long been regarded as a virtually exclusive province of the states." That would change. Not only same-sex marriage and family law in general, but other areas could move into the federal judicial sphere. The law of marriage is directly related to adoption, agency, alimony, child custody and visitation rights, next-of-kin status for hospital visitation and medical decisions, separation, divorce, estate planning, insurance, real estate, taxation, immunity from testimony, crime-victim recovery benefits, and welfare benefits. Notwithstanding the admirable aim of its sponsors to be concise and clear, the FMA would unleash a flood of litigation.

(snip)

Mr. Cox is chairman of the House Republican Policy Committee and the Homeland Security Committee.

URL for this article:
http://online.wsj.com/article/0,,SB109632714491429481,00.html

[SteppingRazor]

1. Marriage Amendment? Meh.

I say let'em keep trying it. An anti-gay marriage Constitutional amendment will never pass. There's not near enough support, even in a mostly Republican Congress. And even if it passed there, no way enough states will ratify it.
All the marriage amendment does is remind liberal voters of the hate eminating from the right. It energizes us, while doing nothing for them.
So, I say, keep it comin'

[sui generis]

2. what a waste of air

"Like all elaborate frauds, this one was built around a kernel of truth: It is true that our constitutions protect minority as well as majority rights."

I really don't consider my rights to dispose of my property as I see fit to the person who shares my life, debt, failures, success and family to be "an elaborate fraud".

I am so sick of these bastards in my life. And on "judicial activism", let's please start with the Supremem Court election decision of 2000, together with the language that the decision was a "one time" decision and could not be used as basis for precedence.

What the fuck was that? The Supreme Court is the ultimate arbiter of precedence. THAT was judicial activism. They protected dumbya because they said continuing a recount would irreparably harm George Bush. THAT was judicial activism.