This Election Day, voters in eight states will go to the polls and decide whether to give the traditional definition of marriage, the union of one man and one woman, the protection of an amendment to their state constitutions. These amendments that are designed to protect traditional marriage from being redefined by radical state and federal judges, and to make sure that voters have a chance to be heard on this fundamental issue.
How has it come to this? Why do voters have to vote on amendments to state constitutions to maintain the definition of something that has been settled in western civilization for thousands of years – long before our constitutions and laws were written. Simply put, the answer is judges.
Activist judges in several states have taken it upon themselves to redefine – or demand that democratically elected legislators redefine – the historical and commonly understood meaning of marriage. All without any input from voters.
A few years ago, four out of seven judges on Massachusetts’ Supreme Court redefined marriage in that state and then ordered their state’s legislature to comply. Just last week the New Jersey Supreme Court ordered that state’s legislature to pass legislation that would either allow gay marriage outright or give all the rights and benefits of marriage under a name other than “marriage”.
Liberal activists attempt to use the judiciary to redefine basic cultural institutions because they know they are unlikely to achieve their goals if voters have a say in the matter. The marriage issue is a perfect example. By gaining the legalization of gay marriages in one state, they will seek to use the federal judiciary to force other states to officially recognize such unions, whether those states allows gay marriage under their own laws or not.
The risk is very real. Due to a quirk in the Massachusetts state constitution, gays from outside that state are not allowed to marry there if their home states don’t allow such marriages as well. Currently none do. But thanks to New Jersey, this will change in 2007. Will the rest of the country allow itself to be dictated to by judges from other states?
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Jet in Columbus
You're joking with this; right? Judges are great until you disagree with them, then they're radical activist agenda-pushing renagades.
Give me a break.
The Republican party has been campaigning against anyone who would thwart Bush's absolute power, and since the legislation has become his pawns, he's gone after the judicial branch trying to break down the constitutional system of checks and balances.
Gay marraige is just a smoke screen to try to distract the voters from Iraq, and you know it. If gays get married, it won't effect your life one tiny little bit. that's been proven in Massechusettes and all over the west coast.
It's just the right-wing religious freaks trying to help Bush achieve absolute and dictatorial control of everyone's life.
2 - Dr. Kurt
YAWN! The same trite nonesense we keep hearing from knee-jerk evangelical neo-cons. The truth is, there is no excuse for denying civil liberties to gays & lesbians, or to African-Americans, or to any other American citizen. Marriage confers over a thousand such privileges; the ethical need to extend these protections to all Americans is hardly a threat to anybody - it is our duty.
An activist judge is one I disgree with, right?
3 - Brent
Sorry Drew, you left yourself wide open for vitriol on this one.
Jet, there's no possible way with a constant barrage of Iraq coverage/hawk and dove propaganda/reporting from the old and new media that gay marriage is a Bush smoke screen. It's like putting a candle in front of a floodlight and talking about how bright the candle is. Contrary to bumper-sticker opinion, there are those of us who lean more right aren't that stupid or that naive. Thanks for playing, though.
That said, I don't care which judges vote for which party, it isn't right for the judiciary to legislate from the bench, which is what happened in NJ with same-sex marriage, in Washington with the eminent domain ruling (although the media did blow that out of proportion, leaving out the states' rights condition), in Wisconsin with the Tom Barrett/Mark Green double-standard upheld by a refusal to hear Green's lawsuit, on and on.
Republicrap or Democrap, it doesn't matter. Judges are to give light on law within the context of a case presented, nothing more.
Is it November 8th yet?
4 - Jet in Columbus
No Brent, wrong. Judges are the check in "Checks and balances" that keep the legislature and/or the president from going to far in an abuse of power.
Through the voter, people are trying to legislate other people's lives and morality on an issue that doesn't belong in the public forum. Nor does something as private at prayer but if they have their way Jewish children would be forced to recite christian edicts and grace before meals at public school.
The perfect example is the Republican Party trying to intervene in the Shaivo case in Florida where they had no business being, but to kiss the ass of the religious right.
If your supposition is correct, why does Bush mention the scantity of marraige between only a man and a woman in every single stump speech he gives as he flies around the country doing partisan politics at the taxpayers expense to the tune of millions of dollars?
5 - Michael J. West
I don't know where to start with the flaws in this argument.
How about here:
1) Government's purpose is not, and has never been, to defend or uphold tradition. If that ever becomes the government's purpose, it will be time to do away with that government.
2) The "activist judges," to use the same tired cliche that you are whipping out and using illegitimately once more, have done their job. Exactly that and nothing more or less. In the cases in question, they were asked whether their state constitutions included any legal clause, connotation, loophole, or any other grounds whatsoever for preventing homosexuals from marriage. To suggest that because they didn't find any they are "activists" is such patent bullshit that I suspect even you, Drew, are fully aware of how much bullshit it is.
3) To suggest that we can suddenly change the definition of marriage and ignore thousands of years of human history without the possibility of negative consequences is to deny reality. The ripple effect across our legal system involving such issues as insurance, inheritance, child custody, property, etc. would be incredible. It would hit our court system like a tsunami and please no one but the trial lawyers.
Now how can you possibly say this--essentially admitting that the gay marriage issue involves the legal rights that come with marriage, then say this:
Despite some of the rhetoric you may have heard, these amendments are not a restriction on anyone’s rights.
You mean, it doesn't restrict homosexual couples' legal rights in terms insurance, inheritance, child custody, property, etc.? In that case, what is the problem with "changing the definition of marriage"? If it affect those things, as you suggest that it does, then it is a restriction on rights. If it is NOT a restriction on rights, then it cannot possibly have a deleterious effect on the aforementioned items.
You know better.
I have to conclude that you don't actually believe what you've written here.
6 - RogerMDillon
Don't you hate when activist judges bow to the Constitution rather than the majority?
This is like reading an article about taxes on Apr 14th by a CPA. If you were good at your job, you wouldn't have time to be writing this today.
Sounds similar to arguments used against inter-racial couples. “Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, Malay and red,” wrote a Virginia judge in 1965, upholding the state’s so-called Racial Integrity Act. “The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.”
Please show one hetero marriage affected by the Mass court decision. Just one.
If the govt grants rights and benefits to straight couples, then they need to grant them to gays couples as well. That's what equality is. Otherwise, repeal the tax breaks, insurance, inheritance, child custody, property, et. al., that straights are granted. Are you okay with that?
7 - Anthony G
Show me where in the constitution it allows gay marriage.
8 - Victor Plenty
Next, activist judges will meddle with other ancient cultural traditions. We might suddenly find it illegal to own slaves. Honorable men might get arrested for dueling.
These activist judges could even attempt to prevent a landlord from claiming his sacred right to spend the first night with the new bride whenever anyone renting from him gets married.
Stop these liberal maniacs now before it's too late!
9 - Anthony G
I like how liberals have to use fake sarcasm to try and get their point across.
10 - Bill B
Just another tired rambling missive on a topic that's got less traction than normal. Is it just me or does it sound a bit desperate?
It's funny how the tone sounds like they're the ones being oppressed instead of the folks they'd deny equal protection to.
Just another bizarro world moment.
11 - Anthony G
I can't wait to see the look on their faces after the good people of Colorado make marriage permanetly between man and woman.
12 - JR
Drew McKissick: Why do voters have to vote on amendments to state constitutions to maintain the definition of something that has been settled in western civilization for thousands of years " long before our constitutions and laws were written.
If there's anything that's settled in western civilization, it's that nothing is ever settled. If you're not embracing change, you're a member of a nearly extinct tribe in some remote corner of the globe (soon to be a tourist trap).
Sorry you don't get to pick and choose which traditions and values are cast aside in the name of progress. I empathize with you. I really do.
13 - Anthony G
Drew wasn't talking about change in general he was just saying that it's sad to see what can of shit people are dragging to the ballots these days.
14 - Michael J. West
Show me where in the constitution it allows gay marriage.
Same place in the Constitution that it allows straight marriage. Nowhere.
We just naturally assume that straight marriage is permissible, because there's nothing in the Constitution that would prevent it.
Likewise, if there's nothing in the Constitution that would prevent gay marriage, one should reasonably assume that it's permissible.
Hence the rush to make constitutional amendments. Because it's becoming clear that unless there is a specific prohibition against gay marriage in the Constitution, there is no legal means of preventing it.
15 - Michael J. West
I should concede that such amendments are perfectly legitimate ways of dealing with the issue, from a legal standpoint.
There's not actually any reason they're necessary, except for political purposes and to cater to the whims of selfish, self-righteous, ignorant, and yes, bigoted people.
But they're legally valid.
16 - Leslie Bohn
No need to assume, MJW. The 9th amendment reads as follows:
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Translated: Just because a right ain't in here don't mean you ain't got it.
One might also consider the 14th amendment, which guarantees equal protection to all persons under the law.
17 - Bill B
The appropriate portion of the 14th amendment;
18 - Anthony G
"We just naturally assume that straight marriage is permissible, because there's nothing in the Constitution that would prevent it."
So maybe we shouldn't even bring it up. Everythings worked so far...
19 - Michael J. West
So maybe we shouldn't even bring it up. Everythings worked so far...
Tell you what, Anthony. The day you say, "Maybe we shouldn't even bring it up" about overturning Roe vs. Wade, that'll be the day I stop supporting gay marriage.
20 - Lee Richards
To all--just wondering: So, when we look up 'marriage' in the dictionary, what do you think the definition should be?
21 - Jet in Columbus
A life long commitment between two consenting adults... period.
Gay marraige doe NOT touch or effect your life in the least, nor will it ever, unless you're some self-righteous jerk who thinks your self worth is base on how many people you think you can judge.
22 - Matt
Does a life long commitment mean there will be no more legal divorce? Why only two adults? I think we need another definition. I don't have the answer, but I think we need to clarify a few things. How about this: a very informal and non-binding agreement between some number of individuals to remain together as long as they are so inclined with no real consequence upon the dissolution of the agreement.
23 - Arch Conservative
"Please show one hetero marriage affected by the Mass court decision. Just one."
Well gee if I married 8 women at once that wouldn't affect anyone else's marriage either would it Roger. So by your logic we should legalize polygamy?
The fact is that no one's civil rights are being infringed upon by banning gay marriage. Every man and woman in America is free to marry the person of their choosing of the opposite sex. Marriage 1 man 1 woman. Don't like that? Bite me!
24 - Arch Conservative
Everyone wants a definition of marriage so how about this one:
Marriage... is the union of one man and one woman that has been defined this way in American society since the founding of this nation and is still desired definition by the vast majority of the American population
25 - Matt
Arch, don't you get it? There is a small but vocal minority that might be offended by your last comment.