"Do the
citizens of a state have the right to define legal marriage as a
man-woman relationship? Or can courts overrule them on behalf of
same-sex marriage?" So Russell Shaw began a piece in that avatar of Catholic conservatism, Our Sunday Visitor, a couple of weeks ago. Shaw went on to acknowledge that courts have "the raw power" to do so, but "[w]hether doing it would be a rightful exercise of their power is questionable indeed."
I'd turn the question around and ask Shaw if he thinks citizens of a state have the right to define legal marriage as a same-sex relationship? Suppose, in a parallel universe, they did so, and a federal court overturned the vote. Would he regard that as a rightful exercise of judicial power? Or suppose, in that same parallel universe, the citizens had voted to give a woman the right to abortion, and courts overruled them on the grounds that fetuses have a right to life. I'm confident Shaw would be on board with that decision.
Such considerations can help us parse the statement issued by Cardinal Francis George, president of the USCCB, in response to U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker's constitutional slam dunk of Proposition 8 in Perry v. Schwarzenegger:
I'd turn the question around and ask Shaw if he thinks citizens of a state have the right to define legal marriage as a same-sex relationship? Suppose, in a parallel universe, they did so, and a federal court overturned the vote. Would he regard that as a rightful exercise of judicial power? Or suppose, in that same parallel universe, the citizens had voted to give a woman the right to abortion, and courts overruled them on the grounds that fetuses have a right to life. I'm confident Shaw would be on board with that decision.
Such considerations can help us parse the statement issued by Cardinal Francis George, president of the USCCB, in response to U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker's constitutional slam dunk of Proposition 8 in Perry v. Schwarzenegger:
Marriage between a man and a woman is the bedrock of any society. The misuse of law to change the nature of marriage undermines the common good. It is tragic that a federal judge would overturn the clear and expressed will of the people in their support for the institution of marriage. No court of civil law has the authority to reach into areas of human experience that nature itself has defined.Here, the "clear and expressed will of the people" is a rhetorical feint, calculated to appeal to the majoritarian instincts of a democratic polity but carrying no real weight. For George, it's not the will of the people but what "nature itself has defined" that matters. How does he know that nature has defined marriage as exclusively "between a man and a woman"? Not by revelation, but through the exercise of reason. It's a matter of natural law, and therefore applicable to all people at all times. Or so the Catholic church teaches.
Other conservative Christians--notably evangelicals--base their
opposition to same-sex marriage on their reading of the Bible, but
realize that, in America, you don't get to argue social policy in court
just on the basis of your own moral or religious convictions. As Judge
Walker put it:
In court, you don't just get to create philosophical arguments to demonstrate that one-man-one-woman marriage is social bedrock. You've got to make some kind of empirical showing that such is indeed the case. Facts are stubborn things, especially when there aren't any. In the judge's words:
Same-sex marriage is not traditional. But, wrote the judge, "the state must have an interest apart from the fact of the tradition itself." Here, in fact, is the last redoubt of jurisprudential defenders of the ancien marital regime like Justice Antonin Scalia. As Scalia put it in his dissenting opinion in Romer v. Evans, a decision that overturned an amendment to the Colorado state constitution barring any jurisdiction from protecting homosexuals as a class from discrimination:
A state's interest in an enactment must of course be secular in nature. The state does not have an interest in enforcing private moral or religious beliefs without an accompanying secular purpose.And what the judge found was that the supporters of Proposition 8 could not demonstrate any secular purpose sufficient to establish a "rational basis" for denying same-sex couples the fundamental right to get married. It would have been good see Cardinal George (or perhaps Princeton Prof. Robert George) offer some expert natural law testimony at the trial and submit to cross examination. I very much doubt, however, that either would have cleared Judge Walker's bar.
In court, you don't just get to create philosophical arguments to demonstrate that one-man-one-woman marriage is social bedrock. You've got to make some kind of empirical showing that such is indeed the case. Facts are stubborn things, especially when there aren't any. In the judge's words:
Plaintiffs presented evidence at trial sufficient to rebut any claim that marriage for same-sex couples amounts to a sweeping social change. See FF 55. Instead, the evidence shows a neutral, if not a positive, effect on the institution of marriage and that same-sex couples' marriages would benefit the state. Id. Moreover, the evidence shows that the rights of those opposed to homosexuality or same-sex couples will remain unaffected if the state ceases to enforce Proposition 8. FF 55, 62.The contrary evidence proponents presented is not credible. Indeed, proponents presented no reliable evidence that allowing same-sex couples to marry will have any negative effects on society or on the institution of marriage.Maybe such evidence will be forthcoming, but I doubt it.
Same-sex marriage is not traditional. But, wrote the judge, "the state must have an interest apart from the fact of the tradition itself." Here, in fact, is the last redoubt of jurisprudential defenders of the ancien marital regime like Justice Antonin Scalia. As Scalia put it in his dissenting opinion in Romer v. Evans, a decision that overturned an amendment to the Colorado state constitution barring any jurisdiction from protecting homosexuals as a class from discrimination:
The Court has mistaken a Kulturkampf for a fit of spite. The constitutional amendment before us here is not the manifestation of a "`bare...desire to harm'" homosexuals, ante, at 13, but is rather a modest attempt by seemingly tolerant Coloradans to preserve traditional sexual mores against the efforts of a politically powerful minority to revise those mores through use of the laws.In other words, in the kind of culture war we're having in America, it's OK to let the defense of traditional sexual mores trump constitutional rights.
The judge has made clear his stubborn refusal to admit to the facts,and his insistence that facts are not what they are.
I don't believe and have never believed that the Infinitely First Cause of existence writes books or has an official fan club or has ethnic favorites among the past inhabitants of this tiny planet,
but I consider it screamingly obvious that human society is bettered by the perpetual guarantee of preferential treatment to opposite-sex relationships over same-sex ones.It's a simple matter of the necessary implications of a species evolving two sexes.Whether or not the incidentals that Judge Walker tries to argue are essential are there,the basic pattern of opposite-sex being the norm is important and the general welfare requires it be preserved.
If we start treating desire to violate a standard of conduct as enrolling someone in a "protected class" against whom it is "discrimination" or "bigotry" to favor that standard,we can expect laws against stealing to be struck down as expressing "hatred" for kleptomaniacs,and mandated "respect" for alcoholics to bar discouragement of drunkenness.Oh,and my driver's license will no longer "violate" my "equal right" to "see differently" and let me go without lenses to correct my vision,with separate roads with large-type signs my "right",
The constitution was never intended to protect wrongdoing by declaring it "equal" to proper behavior.And when the first thing people want is the last thing they need and vice versa,the state serves their best interests only by refusing to stop pressuring them against the behavior they wrongly prefer.
Which of the "facts" did the Judge ignore? Your argument rests completely on the assertion that the State has an interest in procreation and should favor couples who procreate. First, it is unclear that US population totals should be or need to be increased--we can increase immigration quotas if we need to increase labor supply in the future (and right now we have 10% unemployment!). Further, we can and will allow same sex couples to procreate! They'll get a tax break for dependents and for being married, just like other Americans. So, basically, all you have left is that you think homosexuality is wrong and yucky and dangerous (like alcoholism or driving without your glasses). It's George Rekers all over again....