Sacramento Bee Logo

Viewpoints: New kind of judicial activism on gay marriage | The Sacramento Bee

×
  • E-edition
    • Customer Service
    • SacBee Rewards
    • About Us
    • About Us
    • Contact Us
    • Apps
    • Mobile & Apps
    • Twitter, Facebook, Google+, YouTube
    • News in Education (NIE)
  • Newsletters

    • Sacramento Region
    • Arena
    • City Beat
    • Crime
    • Local Govt Salary Database
    • The Homeless
    • Marcos Bretón
    • Transportation
    • Education
    • Environment
    • Health & Medicine
    • Traffic Conditions
    • Weather
    • Communities
    • Elk Grove
    • Folsom/El Dorado
    • Roseville/Placer
    • Yolo
    • Sports
    • Kings
    • NBA News
    • 49ers
    • Giants
    • Oakland A's
    • High School Sports
    • Joe Davidson
    • More Sports
    • Raiders
    • NFL News
    • MLB News
    • River Cats
    • Soccer
    • Colleges
    • Golf
    • Autos Racing
    • Politics
    • Capitol Alert
    • State Workers
    • The California Influencer Series
    • Local Elections
    • PoliGRAPH
    • State Worker Salary Database
    • Legislative Gifts
    • Local Elections
    • California Elections
    • Election Endorsements
    • Election 2018
    • Voter Guide
    • Investigations
    • Data Tracker
    • Public Eye
    • Afghan Refugees
    • Nursing Homes
    • Opinion
    • Editorials
    • Election Endorsements
    • Viewpoints
    • Influencers Opinion
    • California Forum
    • Letters to the Editor
    • Submit a Letter
    • Jack Ohman
    • Editorial Board
    • Entertainment & Life
    • Arts & Theater
    • Books
    • Home & Garden
    • Movies
    • Music
    • Outdoors
    • Pets
    • Travel
    • More Entertainment
    • Events Calendar
    • Horoscopes
    • Comics
    • Puzzles
    • TV Listings
    • Sacbee Rewards
    • Food & Drink
    • Restaurants News & Reviews
    • Restaurant Directory
    • Cooking & Recipes
    • Beer
    • Wine
    • Appetizers Blog
    • California
    • Big Valley
    • Marijuana
    • Wildfires
    • Water & Drought
    • Lottery
    • Business
    • Real Estate
    • Market Summary
    • Cathie Anderson
    • Nation & World
    • National
    • World
    • Technology
    • Family
    • Celebrities
    • TV news
    • Weird News
    • Video Break
    • News Obituaries
    • Death Notices
    • FAQ
    • ObitMessenger
    • In Memoriam

    • The Sacramento Bee Store
    • Golf Card
    • Farm to Fork Dining Card
  • Jobs
  • Moonlighting
  • Cars
  • Homes
  • Classifieds
  • Legal Notices
  • Place an Ad
  • Advertise
  • Mobile & Apps

Viewpoints

Viewpoints: New kind of judicial activism on gay marriage

By Margaret A. Bengs - Special to The Bee

    ORDER REPRINT →

October 09, 2014 12:00 AM

For many Californians, the U.S. Supreme Court’s refusal to review the appeals by five states of lower court rulings overturning their traditional marriage laws has an unsettling sense of déjà vu.

In June 2013, the high court also declined to rule on the constitutionality of California’s Proposition 8, the 2008 ballot measure approved by 7 million voters, which engraved the traditional definition of marriage into the state constitution. The high court stated that Proposition 8 proponents had no “standing” to appeal a lower-court ruling against the measure, even though state officials charged with defending it refused to do so. Thus, the voices of millions of Californians were not even allowed to be heard in court.

Now, the will of millions of additional Americans is being swept into the dustbin of history. Thirty-one states have a law or constitutional amendment restricting marriage to one man and one woman. In almost every state where the issue has been put to popular vote, the people have supported traditional marriage. In the 19 states and the District of Columbia where same-sex marriage has been legalized, most of the decisions were made by courts, a handful by state legislatures.

With the Supreme Court’s refusal to review the appeals of Utah, Virginia, Oklahoma, Indiana and Wisconsin, same-sex marriage will be now be allowed in these states, as well as six others under the jurisdiction of the federal circuit courts that overturned state bans. These other states also support traditional marriage, but will now be forced to live under the court rulings. With its inaction, the Supreme Court has in essence silenced those Americans’ voices and undermined a fundamental democratic right.

Sign Up and Save

Get six months of free digital access to The Sacramento Bee

SUBSCRIBE WITH GOOGLE

#ReadLocal

The high court’s refusal to act represents a new form of judicial activism – the activism of inaction.

Such a monumental societal change as redefining marriage is now being made, not through the front door of our republic – with laws enacted by elected officials or by a direct vote of the people – but through the back door by a handful of unelected judges.

The reason these cases rose to the Supreme Court in the first place was to decide this question: Do state laws prohibiting same-sex marriage violate the U.S. Constitution?

Yet, that decision was never made – not for Proposition 8, or for the other states that appealed. Thus, same-sex marriages will now be allowed without the high court ever having ruled on the core question of whether the Constitution includes a right to gay marriage.

Some same-sex marriage advocates may be breathing a sigh of relief on that point, as even friendly justices would be hard-pressed to excavate such a right in the Constitution. Proponents claim that the “equal protection” clause guarantees everyone’s fundamental right to marry. But the issue is not about equal rights, it’s about redefining marriage.

Another troubling outcome of the high court’s inaction is that it undermines state authority over marriage laws. Yet the court itself used state law as the underpinning of its 2013 ruling in United States v. Windsor. In that case, the court overturned a provision of the federal Defense of Marriage Act – ruling that gay and lesbian couples married in a state where same-sex marriage is now legal are entitled to the same federal benefits as married heterosexual couples.

The whole premise of the Windsor decision was based on the right of a state to legalize same-sex marriage. Yet by refusing the hear appeals from states that have prohibited same-sex marriage, the court ignored the same right of those states to pass marriage laws.

Underscoring the serious implication of this apparent double standard, many of the lower-court rulings have used Windsor’s rationale to overturn state bans, while those states will now not even be allowed their day in court.

One silver lining is that by not ruling, the court did not set a legal precedent. So, technically, lower courts are still free to rule as they see fit. Several more cases are currently pending in federal circuit courts, and the issue may eventually end up back in the Supreme Court.

By then, though, societal and legal chaos would likely ensue. Thus, muddling up the process with selective court action and inaction will likely impose a desired outcome on the people – by judicial fiat.

No matter what one’s view on same-sex marriage, we should all be concerned with the sidestepping of legitimate democratic processes designed to protect our freedoms and our right to self-government.

  Comments  

Videos

Painting the Delta

Homeless in Sacramento

View More Video

Trending Stories

Gavin Newsom says California plans to sue Donald Trump over national emergency declaration

February 15, 2019 10:32 AM

Will ‘basic income’ become the California norm? Stockton starts $500 no-strings payments

February 15, 2019 03:30 AM

El Niño officially arrives: Rising rivers bring flood warnings to Sacramento, Yolo

February 14, 2019 12:21 PM

Interstate 80 closed in both directions amid whiteout conditions and collisions

February 14, 2019 07:44 PM

Does this school trip cross line between church and state? Some Sacramento parents say yes

February 14, 2019 03:30 AM

Read Next

One year after Parkland shooting, gun violence remains a threat

Viewpoints

One year after Parkland shooting, gun violence remains a threat

By Austin Michael Special to The Sacramento Bee

    ORDER REPRINT →

February 14, 2019 12:01 AM

A year after the shooting at Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, several common sense gun laws are being considered. But we can’t rely on politicians alone. We must do more to stop gun violence.

KEEP READING

Sign Up and Save

#ReadLocal

Get six months of free digital access to The Sacramento Bee

SUBSCRIBE WITH GOOGLE

MORE VIEWPOINTS

Glowing coverage of Kamala Harris ignores reality

Bill Whalen

Glowing coverage of Kamala Harris ignores reality

February 12, 2019 12:01 AM
Californians deserve safe drinking water. It’s time for the Legislature to deliver it

Viewpoints

Californians deserve safe drinking water. It’s time for the Legislature to deliver it

February 12, 2019 12:01 AM
Prosecutors’ attack on youth justice reform undermines democracy

California Forum

Prosecutors’ attack on youth justice reform undermines democracy

February 10, 2019 12:01 AM
Commentary: School districts set poor example for students

California Forum

Commentary: School districts set poor example for students

February 10, 2019 03:01 AM
It’s too late to save my son’s life, but this drug can save others

California Forum

It’s too late to save my son’s life, but this drug can save others

February 10, 2019 12:01 AM
Climate change is a health emergency. Let’s act like it

California Forum

Climate change is a health emergency. Let’s act like it

February 10, 2019 12:01 AM
Take Us With You

Real-time updates and all local stories you want right in the palm of your hand.

Icon for mobile apps

The Sacramento Bee App

View Newsletters

Subscriptions
  • Start a Subscription
  • Customer Service
  • eEdition
  • Vacation Hold
  • Pay Your Bill
  • Rewards
Learn More
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Newsletters
  • News in Education
  • Photo Store
Advertising
  • Place a Classified Ad
  • Place a Legal Notice
  • Place a Digital Ad
  • Place a Newspaper Ad
Copyright
Commenting Policy
Corrections Policy
Privacy Policy
Terms of Service


Back to Story