Liberals are jumping up and down after Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg dropped what they see as a big hint about a forthcoming ruling on same-sex marriage. While officiating over a gay wedding in Washington D.C., Ginsburg gave special emphasis to the word “Constitution” when citing the source of her vested authority. When the guests applauded this little wink, Ginsburg appeared especially pleased with the reaction, according to Maureen Dowd in the New York Times.
Ginsburg’s position on the subject is no secret, of course; the fact that she would officiate such a wedding is a fairly clear indicator of her stance. She is a liberal activist in a judge’s robes, and she has never been afraid to jump into political discourse when the mood suits her. Whether she was simply speaking for herself or dropping a clue about the forthcoming decision remains to be seen, however. Should the Supreme Court rule against same-sex marriage bans in June, these weddings will enjoy full constitutional protection from here on out.
The question, of course, is whether or not they should.
The answer can be found in the document itself, which naturally makes no mention of marriage at all. The Constitution is a relatively short read, and there is nothing in it about gays, marriage, or anything of the like. To read it in such a way requires a liberal lens that has nothing to do with the law and everything to do with social activism. States may of course elect to legalize gay marriage, and there is a political process through which that can – and has – been done. But they have the right to ban these marriages through the same process. A Supreme Court ruling that says otherwise would be a dramatic expansion of federal power.
Will there come a day when gay marriage is the law of the land in all 50 states? Probably. The social shifts we’ve seen over the last couple of decades show a pretty clear trend. And that makes a Supreme Court ruling even more superfluous and egregious. Washington liberals have no business telling Americans in the heartland how they should live their lives. This is exactly the kind of federal overreach the founders sought to prevent when devising the Constitution in the first place.
By striking down gay marriage bans, the Supreme Court will effectively be choosing the rights of gays over the rights of everyone else. Opponents of gay marriage will no longer have a legal leg to stand on, and this will have far-reaching ramifications on religious liberty. It’s not the court’s business to decide cases based on societal trends. It’s not the court’s business to enforce a specific kind of morality on the rest of the country. The Constitution is there to protect human rights, not to make them up out of thin air.
“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.” That’s the text of the Tenth Amendment, and it’s all one needs to see how absurd any constitutional argument for gay marriage really is. Ginsburg and the rest of the liberals don’t care about the Constitution, though. They just want to use their position to make history.
They’ll make history, all right. Tyrants always do.