Share This Article with a Friend!

SCOTUS Inflames Culture War By Overruling We The People On Marriage

In the wake of the two Supreme Court decisions on same sex "marriage," many commentators will concentrate on the negative effects legalizing same sex marriage will have on our society. However, far from settling whether same sex marriage is universally legal in the United States, what the Court did was ignite a new and much more divisive culture war between conservatives and the secular liberal elite. 
If, as the Court seems to say, the will of the people is irrelevant to the definition of marriage, then the Supreme Court’s decisions in the two same sex “marriage” cases in essence eliminated one of the fundamental reasons men and women have come together from time immemorial to form governments – to order a moral framework for society.

And this is where the culture war is going to get hot.

What the Court said was that in defining what is or is not a lawful "marriage" a handful of elite elected and appointed officials may render void the will of the people properly expressed through their Representatives in Congress and the initiative process in the State of California.

In both cases (DOMA and California Prop 8) the people spoke, but the elected officials charged with defending the will of the people “threw the game” by refusing to defend the Defense of Marriage Act and California Proposition 8 defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman.

In the California Prop 8 case the Supreme Court said nothing about the validity of the same sex marriage bans in California and roughly three dozen other states. What they said was that defenders of California's same sex marriage ban did not have the right to appeal lower court rulings striking down the ban.

This means that those officials who refused to carry out their lawfully duties to defend the ban the people passed – in the case of Prop 8 that would be the Governor, Attorney General and Secretary of State of California – could thwart the will of the people, and the people could not come to the Supreme Court or any other federal court to defend the law they passed.

If the top elected officials of a state can void the result of a referendum vote on a constitutional amendment simply by refusing to defend it in court – and the court won’t recognize the right of proponents to defend the will of the people – what’s the point in having the initiative and referendum process?

Such a ruling is certainly the height of mindless legalism and in place of the duly expressed will of the people of California it substitutes a strange rule of the elite for our federal system of representative government.

It also means that a willingness to stand firm and actively defend laws defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman is going to be an important test for any candidate seeking the support of cultural conservatives for the office of Governor or state Attorney General.

In the case of the Defense of Marriage Act the issues were more complicated, but still came down to the same principle: Who decides society’s moral framework, the people or a small elite?

As in the Prop 8 case the elected officials charged with defending DOMA as the duly enacted law of the land – President Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder – essentially threw the case by refusing to defend the law.

And the Court used what Justice Scalia termed a “power-grabbing decision” to find that it had jurisdiction to rule DOMA unconstitutional. What Scalia scorched in his dissent is what was in essence collusion between President Obama and the homosexual activist community to offer the Supreme Court a “fixed” case that created an opportunity to satisfy the “Court’s desire to blurt out its view of the law.”

Justice Scalia’s insight that “Be sure of this much: If a President wants to insulate his judgment of unconstitutionality from our review, he can. What the views urged in this dissent produce is not insulation from judicial review but insulation from Executive contrivance.”

The Supreme Court has waded into a public policy debate every bit as contentious – and endless – as the abortion debate.

While we decry the Supreme Court’s erosion of government’s foundational role in creating a moral order for society, the most frightening part of today’s decisions is that the Court appears to have removed the power to order society’s moral framework from “We the People,” and vested it in an elite class of judges and public officials who may ignore our will at their pleasure.

If Congress can’t define marriage, and the voters of California can’t define marriage because their elected officials don’t agree with the voters’ decision, the only way to bring the debate over the definition of marriage to a conclusion satisfactory to conservatives is to step up the culture war to ensure that we elect only those who will stand for traditional marriage as Governors, state Attorneys General and President of the United States.

Share this

I think we ALL forget the

I think we ALL forget the basic argument here. Each side looks to fight this argument based on different belief systems. Conservatives look at it from a religious viewpoint...and as such...SCOTUS and any OTHER Court should not be able to affirm or deny what marriage means EXCEPT as that which is performed by a government representative...Justice of the Peace.... These were called civil unions and were supposed to be "marriages" without religion. So why can't homosexuals be satisfied with that? Well...because for the most part, they are acting as a political party extension of the Left and simply seek to undermine and destroy religion as it's base in the country's culture. That IS the total reason. Why do I say this.? Because these same people argue in all other cases to keep Church and State separate...but when the system goes against their wishes...they immediately invoke the State to step in and force their will on everyone else. This is wrong and this is where the head-butting begins. No group, including the Courts, can define what marriage is relative to the faith of the particular ceremony as attributed to that specific faith. The only comment the Court should be able to make and enforce is allowing the JOP perform these same-sex marriages under the seal of the government...BUT...the Government MAY NOT force religions t perform or accept these ceremonies as such as they go against the particular faith of that Church. Homosexual lobbyists are not accepting of that separation so we have this on-going fight which has NOTHING to do with "equal rights" or "civil rights"...but to do totally with religious freedom and personal choice.... Sorry if that takes the sparkle out of the argument, but we simply don't care if you want to marry someone of the same sex...STOP TRYING TO FORCE US TO CHANGE OUR RELIGION TO ACCOMMODATE YOU...period!

SCOTUS Followed the 10th Amendment

First, the recent US Supreme Court (SCOTUS) decisions (on DOMA and on California Prop 8) should have been expected by those grounded in a basic understanding of the Constitution. To wit, the 10th Amendment provides: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” I am disappointed that through either ignorance, convenience or demagoguery the constitutional basis for federalism is ignored by appeal to “culture war” or what amounts to establishment of religion (code words “family values”). While the 14th Amendment’s “equal protection” clause is sometimes used as a loophole for increasing the central government’s power, that is not the original intent.
Second, DOMA is bad law that should be opposed on constitutional grounds from the outset because it is federal legislation in an area “reserved to the States”.
Third, SCOTUS refused to counter California Supreme Court rulings interpreting Prop 8 as being contrary the standard of the California Constitution; namely, an area without federal jurisdiction. Again, it is somewhat astounding that those who claim constitutional values in particular should fail to observe the basis of our federal republic’s powers reserved to the States. To argue for a national standard for the marriage contract is a violation of the Tenth Amendment "reserved powers" clause; and, effectively argues for increased federal power over the states.
Fourth, the English common law basis of marriage is a contract that provides for witness(es) of that contract, and registration (Marriage Act of 1753) of same. During the Protestant Reformation, state requirements were added to church requirements. Also, civil ceremonies for marriage contract and divorce were instituted exclusive of a state church. So, while most religions attach ritual or sacramental significance to marriage vows, in civil terms the bond is a contract entered into by two adults and witnessed by an appropriate/authorized civil or religious minister. The 50-states do provide for civil procedures and representatives (such as justice of the peace) for witnessing and recording a marriage contract between two adults; and, the 50-states also accept without duplicative effort a religious minister acting as witness.
Fifth, it is a “red herring” argument that would argue that the state would require a religious minister opposed to same sex marriage to act as witness to same; since that would be a violation of the First Amendment anti-establishment clause. Likewise, to argue for religious conditions be part of a contract of civil union would also tend against the same anti-establishment clause.
Finally, the best way to divide the tenuous, maybe nonexistent, coalition wandering in Republican Party and Tea Party circles is to digress from the cause of: liberty, free markets, sound money, and constitutional government. Culture war side issues may be popular with the minority of a minority that constitutes both of the two major parties. However, such a divisive and unconstitutional culture war “poison pill” would provide a means of stripping off the growing independent group of voters that are essential for political survival of the republic.


Other than the traditional religious concepts of same sex marriage this whole bruhaha relates to money. The lbgt wants ss civil union to recognized as is man and woman marriage and for the most part the reason has to do with money, legal tax status by the government to make claim to benefits and tax status.
Eliminate the progressive tax, the IRS by using a ballot driven national tax and another anxiety disappears from the american tax circus, tax discrimination from the IRS, such are you single or married, also goes away, the left loses a social whipping tool and WTP can prosper in many ways afterward. Tie that together with term limits no retirement for elected officials and the government appointees and gollllleeeee we can have a yearly budget and control the over spending also your representation is regained and reiforced....So let's let civil marriage work itself out but let's get rid of the problems caused by government because government is the and point.

Supreme Court Ruling

It seems to me, the court just outlawed free expression of speech for the people. Democracy is supposed to be the law of the land, not the will of a few "choice" people. Congress has the power to override the Supreme Court, but I can't think of one time they have done that. This ruling is clearly unconstitutional. I question whether or not our political leaders know the Constitution. Check and balances need to be exercised this time.