Winnipeg Free Press - ONLINE EDITION

Supreme Court not blind, it’s deaf

  • Print

Justice was not blind at the U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday. It was deaf — deaf to the will of the people of California and the nation. With its decision in the Perry case, a majority of the Supreme Court abandoned the seven million California voters who passed Proposition 8. And by overturning the Defence of Marriage Act, the court subverted the will of Congress and the people who elected the senators and representatives who serve there.

To overturn the Defence of Marriage Act, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy invented a standard of "heightened scrutiny" for any law representing what he termed an "unusual deviation." As he wrote: "DOMA’s unusual deviation from the usual tradition of recognizing and accepting state definitions of marriage here operates to deprive same-sex couples of the benefits and responsibilities that come with the federal recognition of their marriages."

More Comment on Same-Sex Marriage

Alito diminishes U.S. Supreme Court by Mark Joseph Stern: "After authoring a slew of 5-4 conservative opinions this week and helping to effectively kill the Voting Rights Act, Justice Samuel Alito should be in a good mood. He’s not."

Supreme Court not blind, it’s deaf by Maggie Gallagher: "Justice was not blind at the U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday. It was deaf — deaf to the will of the people of California and the nation."

Court struck down an anti-gay past by William Saletan: "Once again, the Supreme Court has infuriated conservatives."

‘Ick factor’ no way to defend marriage law by George Takei: "Amazingly, since Stonewall, the question of LGBT rights has evolved from whether homosexuals should have any place in our society to whether gay and lesbian couples should be accorded equal marital stature."

But that standard of deviation from "tradition" has never been applied to the many laws enacted by Congress that have affirmed new, leftist values.

Kennedy’s reasoning has little to do with the law; rather, he seems to be trying to write his own moral values into the Constitution. He may have seen himself as writing this generation’s Brown v. Board of Education. But in fact, his decision is much more likely to become the Roe v. Wade of this generation.

Many have argued that gay marriage is different from abortion because support for gay marriage is surging in polls and the next generation is firmly pro-gay marriage. But as with gay marriage today, American attitudes toward abortion were rapidly liberalizing in advance of the Supreme Court’s ruling on Roe in 1973.

Another similarity between attitudes toward abortion then and toward gay marriage today is that opposition to abortion was strongest among the older generations. As two scholars writing in the August 1980 issue of the Journal of Marriage and the Family noted, in 1972, those under 30 were less than one-third as likely as those over age 45 to say they disapproved of all abortions, and 66 per cent of those under age 30 felt there should be no restrictions at all on abortion.

In the immediate aftermath of Roe, public support for abortion continued to surge, leading many to predict opposition to abortion would literally die off.

Instead, something unexpected happened.

As the government and cultural elites moved more aggressively to use their power to delegitimize Christian views of sex and abortion, churches organized and huge numbers of ordinary people began to insist that their voices and their values be heard.

Today, 40 years later, far from moribund, the pro-life movement is as vibrant and strong as it has ever been. Indeed, the Supreme Court’s ruling in Roe v. Wade not only didn’t settle the matter once and for all, it galvanized a movement of conscience that has continued to grow in strength and reach.

As with the decision written by Justice Harry Blackmun in Roe, Kennedy’s decision in the DOMA case served to disenfranchise millions of concerned voters and to tip the scale of justice in a liberal direction on a controversial moral issue.

But as we learned with Roe, deep moral questions can’t simply be ruled invalid. The concerns about abortion didn’t simply evaporate because of a court decision, nor will they when it comes to same-sex marriage. And a court ruling can’t change the fact that the unions of two men or two women have inherent differences from unions of a man and a woman.

President Barack Obama recently tried to use his eloquence to suggest that supporting gay marriage was virtually mandated by the Declaration of Independence: "If we truly are created equal," he intoned, "then surely the love we commit to one another must be equal as well."

Yes, all of us are created equal. All children are created equal. Every baby is equally entitled to life. And every baby is equally entitled to the love and care of the man and woman who made him or her.

Governments cannot always guarantee these rights. But the least it can do is not attempt to negate them with court rulings.

 

Maggie Gallagher, the first president of the National Organization for Marriage, was a major fundraiser for the campaign to place Proposition 8 banning gay marriage in California on the ballot. She is now a fellow at the American Principles Project.

—Los Angeles Times

Fact Check

Fact Check

Have you found an error, or know of something we’ve missed in one of our stories?
Please use the form below and let us know.

* Required
  • Please post the headline of the story or the title of the video with the error.

  • Please post exactly what was wrong with the story.

  • Please indicate your source for the correct information.

  • Yes

    No

  • This will only be used to contact you if we have a question about your submission, it will not be used to identify you or be published.

  • Cancel

Having problems with the form?

Contact Us Directly
  • Print

You can comment on most stories on winnipegfreepress.com. You can also agree or disagree with other comments. All you need to do is be a Winnipeg Free Press print or e-edition subscriber to join the conversation and give your feedback.

You can comment on most stories on winnipegfreepress.com. You can also agree or disagree with other comments. All you need to do is be a Winnipeg Free Press print or e-edition subscriber to join the conversation and give your feedback.

Have Your Say

New to commenting? Check out our Frequently Asked Questions.

Have Your Say

Comments are open to Winnipeg Free Press print or e-edition subscribers only. why?

Have Your Say

Comments are open to Winnipeg Free Press Subscribers only. why?

The Winnipeg Free Press does not necessarily endorse any of the views posted. By submitting your comment, you agree to our Terms and Conditions. These terms were revised effective April 16, 2010.

letters

Make text: Larger | Smaller

LATEST VIDEO

Gail Asper says museum honours her father’s vision

View more like this

Photo Store Gallery

  • KEN GIGLIOTTI / WINNIPEG FREE PRESS / Jan 10  2011 ‚Äì WEB STDUP ‚Äì Frosty morning at -15 degrees C , in pic frost covers the the Nellie McClung statue  on the MB Legislature grounds at 7am
  • JOE.BRYKSA@FREEPRESS.MB.CA Local-(  Standup photo)-    A butterfly looks for nector on a lily Tuesday afternoon in Wolseley-JOE BRYKSA/WINNIPEG FREE PRESS- June 22, 2010

View More Gallery Photos

Poll

Should the Canadian Museum for Human Rights use the word 'genocide' in exhibits on Indian residential schools?

View Results

View Related Story

Ads by Google