IN ADDITION to giving President Bush a strong mandate to rule for a second term last Tuesday, voters in 11 states affirmed their belief in traditional marriage values. In these states (including two that voted for Kerry) a constitutional amendment passed defining marriage between one man and one woman. Some of these amendments also banned certain types of civil unions. The most interesting point is that all of these ballot initiatives passed by overwhelming margins. In Mississippi, voters supported the amendment by 86 percent. This overarching trend toward social conservativism is representative of the mindset of the country and spells bad news for the activist liberals.
For some time now the extreme left has had a hard time enforcing their radical agenda on the rest of the country by electoral or legislative mandate alone. This latest election only confirms their troubles. President Bush was the first candidate since 1988 to receive a majority of the popular vote. The vote in many key battleground states was within a comfortable 4- to 5-point margin. Evangelical Christians and other conservatives turned out to the polls in record numbers.
So what do you do if you are a disenfranchised liberal who cannot accomplish your agenda? Why, you sue, of course. The New York Times reported that in Georgia, "gay rights groups said they planned to ask a judge to strike down the amendment as soon as the election results were certified." According to the Associated Press, two couples filed a lawsuit in Oklahoma challenging the constitutionality of its amendment. Granted, this is a federal lawsuit challenging a state matter, but the irony remains. The fact of the matter is that faced with virtually no popular support for their radical politics, the leftists' only remaining option is to rely upon activist judges to legislate from the bench.
Already in Louisiana, the gay pressure groups have scored a victory. Over 76 percent of the Louisiana electorate voted in September to enact a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage and civil unions. A judge ruled the amendment void on a technicality, effectively overruling a vast majority of the voters.
The Republicans have a great opportunity now. For the next two years the GOP will enjoy a strong majority in both the House and the Senate with a Republican president. The GOP must use this majority to ensure that any new appointments to the federal courts are judges who understand the proper place of the judicial system.
Ever since the concept of judicial review was first dreamed up, the Supreme Court and other courts have been gaining more and more power. Essentially, the concept of judicial review allows the court to review the acts of the legislature. What this concept does not allow, however, is for the court to have wide overarching powers to enact its will.
The fundamental problem when the courts become too powerful is accountability. When a single judge in Louisiana can overrule 76 percent of the electorate, we have a problem. Judges are supposedly non-partisan, but in their position, politics are unavoidable. They are appointed by a politician, who likely agrees with their views, and then they serve indefinitely. Without the same accountability to the electorate that the politicians face, the judges have relative free reign to do as they please. Some would claim this is a benefit, and it is to a point. It is beneficial for the courts to be able to protect the rights of electoral minorities, but in order for democracy to function, they cannot have the power to arbitrarily overrule the intentions of the citizens of this country.
This particular debate is not so much about gay marriage as it is about the ability of the people of this country to choose to recognize institutions that reflect their values. It is not physically possible to purge moral values from our government. Like it or not, we have, and always will have, a society that is based on a set of moral values. This debate is about the vast majority of people in a given state choosing how they want to define marriage. This debate is about choosing if killing one's own child is acceptable. These are issues that are best left up to the people and their duly elected representatives.
These next few years represent a time of great change in our nation.The leaders that we elected and re-elected last week now have an opportunity and a responsibility to represent the intentions of those who elected them.
Daniel Bagley is a Cavalier Daily associate editor. He can be reached at dbagley@cavalierdaily.com.
Read More
KURTZWEIL: Threats to learning cannot be met with cowardice
By Paul Kurtzweil | 3 days agoResisting an unjust system should be at the forefront of university policy.
CASTAGNO: Closing the Federal Executive Institute fails local residents
By Conall Costagno | 4 days agoThe unwilling departure of the FEI from Charlottesville represents the severing of a constructive accord between the government and the University.
COHEN: Facing federal cuts, U.Va. must defend affordability
By Ryan Cohen | 6 days agoIn this uncertain environment, the University must act creatively and strategically to ensure it can maintain its commitment to affordability.
