Three Courts, Three Strikes Against Marriage
- Oct 14, 2008 - 2
The nation’s third smallest state has just found a prominent place on a withering social landscape: Connecticut now becomes the third state to legalize same-sex “marriage.” Not surprisingly, the egregious decision was made not by the will of the people but by the judicial fiat of a court.
In a narrow 4-3 decision, the Connecticut Supreme Court on Oct. 10 struck down the state’s marriage law, giving homosexual couples the green light to marry. That’s strike three in court rulings on marriage. In May 2003, Connecticut’s neighbor, Massachusetts, became the first state to legalize same-sex “marriage,” and California followed last May when its highest court overturned the will of 61 percent of voters who approved a ballot measure in 2000 on traditional marriage. Each of the three rulings was decided by four judges and with a one-vote margin. Put another way, 12 judges have usurped the role of tens of millions of people.
This latest court decision from the Constitution State shows a brazen disregard for its foundational governing documents, the state and U.S. constitutions. The four judges discarded the intent of the state constitution and instead adopted what they considered to be contemporary sentiment toward same-sex “marriage.” Justice Richard N. Palmer, writing for the majority, conceded that “the right to marry is not enumerated in our constitution” but argued that “our conventional understanding of marriage must yield to a more contemporary appreciation of the rights entitled to constitutional protection.”
This contrasts sharply with the tempered message from the dissenting justices. In his dissent, Justice Peter T. Zarella wrote, “The ancient definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman has its basis in biology, not bigotry.” Recognizing the proper limitations of the court, he added that any attempt to redefine marriage is “a decision for the legislature or the people of the state and not this court.” Even this well-argued, strict-constructionist dissent was not enough to rein in Connecticut’s runaway judiciary.
The court’s blessing on the expansion of marriage is a bane for the institution and for the children who will be taught beginning in their elementary school years that marriage between a mommy and a mommy or a daddy and a daddy is perfectly normal, even celebrated. Other children will have no choice but to grow up in same-sex households.
Marriage defined as the union of one man and one woman is part of the bedrock of our nation. The Psalmist posed the question, “When the foundations are being destroyed, what can the righteous do?” (Psalm 11:3).
Fortunately, something can be done. Three strikes at the marital foundation are not enough to shatter the God-ordained institution altogether. California voters can right the wrong of its court in three weeks as the state joins Arizona and Florida with ballot initiatives to define one-man, one-woman marriage in their state constitutions. Undoing the damage in Connecticut will take longer. A marriage amendment will not appear on that state ballot, but voters will be asked whether a constitutional convention should be called. A “yes” vote could bring the issue back to the people where it belongs.
The courts can—and undoubtedly will—continue to strike against marriage. The only sure means to keep courts from reducing marriage to rubble is to pass an amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Until that day, pro-family Americans should lend their support to the passage of state marriage amendments. Some can vote in November. Others can give toward those efforts. All can pray.
The Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission works to preserve the institution of marriage and the value of family in the lives of Americans. To learn more about these important issues, additional resources are available here. If your church is interested in purchasing bulletin inserts or other materials on marriage and family, please visit our online bookstore.
Further Learning
Learn more about: Family, Marriage, Sexual Purity, Homosexuality, Citizenship, Legislation
2 comments (post your own) feed
1 On Oct 15th, 2008, at 10:49am, Charles Enlow wrote:
Here’s a solution to judicial usurpation of the legislative power: the thing can be fixed by amending the Constitution to set a finite term to judicial tenure, after which the incumbent judge must stand for re-selection (as is the case with state judges in Oklahoma)by the people. This wouldn’t work unless public notification is made, at taxpayer expense in a journal of national circulation, of the decisions made by the incumbent on issues coming before his/her court, just prior to the voting on continuance.
Federal judges are granted lifetime tenure “on good behavior”. The motive was praiseworthy: to insulate the judge against political pressure. But un-Constitutional decisions are by definition bad behavior, and the people should posses the power to deny such a judge continuance in office. True, impeachment is a remedy which already exists, but politicians have lacked the courage or will to use it.
2 On Oct 15th, 2008, at 10:55am, Manny wrote:
I’m not sure why this issue is always characterized as an attack on marriage. Nobody is attacking the standard Christian idea of marriage. Everyday millions of people get married exactly the same way they always did. Nothing in any of these court decisions affects that one way or the other. The court decisions are based on the right of individuals to not agree with the majority in areas which are not otherwise defined as criminal. I may or may not agree with a same sex couples decision to form a lasting relationship, but I don’t see how their decision is an attack on my marriage of more than 40 years or the marriages of any of my children or anyone else in my family. I have more to say on this but have no chose but to submit to your arbitrary word limits.