Allowing courts to overrule the ballot box
Delaware Gazette cartoon by Dan Collins
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Freedom of speech at the ballot box is a right guaranteed to all voters in the Bill of Rights. Our votes cannot be coerced, we limit voting to native-born or naturalized citizens and issues are decided by the number of yea or nay votes. When a community votes in larger numbers one way, the issue is decided.
I was dismayed to read comments from friends about the 6-1 judicial decision in California to uphold the results of the popular election that overturned Proposition 8, which had allowed same-sex marriage. They bandied words like intolerance, hatred and Mormonism when the court ruled that the election results stood.
I found it curious that intelligent people I know would actually be in favor of a court overturning what 52 percent of voters in California decided. It wasn’t about where one stands on same-sex marriage, but where one stands on the right to free elections unencumbered by jurists who are politically appointed or politically elected.
When we think it’s okay for a court of seven judges to disregard what we said at the polls, we fall into a morass where fascism can be the only result. Some of the 48 percent of voters who supported same-sex marriage didn’t have a problem with a court overrruling a popular vote on Proposition 8. That’s a scary thought that belongs in George Orwell’s 1984 instead of in America 2009.
Three states allow same-sex marriage and two others will make it legal by the fall. Thirty states have prohibitions against it, including my home state of Florida. (Florida’s ballot language was confusing; it banned civil unions, not just same-sex unions.)
Our laws are designed to give us a voice at the ballot box. Those who oppose how the majority voted have the rights to free speech, free assembly and freedom of the press to make their case. Issues can return to the ballot and special-interest groups can battle for the hearts and minds of voters. Under no circumstances should we impose judicial involvement in ballot-box issues.
If a court dominated by convervative jurists were to overturn an issue that a majority of supporters of gay marriage supported, the aggrieved would rightfully call it tyranny. I would join them in protesting that courts have no business overturning the results of fair elections. The folks who support same-sex marriage and have claimed victories in Vermont and Maine would be aghast if a court were to preempt the rulings allowing them to marry. It’s always a matter of whose ox is being gored.
We cannot set the dangerous precedent of having courts overturn ballot decisions for no valid reason other than the minority of voters don’t like the results of the election. We may as well burn the Constitution and let its ashes scatter in the winds of indifference.
May 27th, 2009 at 6:28 pm
May 28th, 2009 at 5:40 pm
Just to clarify: Prop. 8 did NOT allow same-sex marriage. Rather, it was an initiative to amend the California Constitution to define marriage as only between a man and a woman.
The initiative was placed on the ballot because the California State Supreme Court had ruled that to deny same-sex marriage was a violation of the Equal Protection Clause (or some similar reasoning). Tuesday’s ruling, by the same California State Supreme Court, reaffirmed that the people of California do have the right to amend their own State Constitution by the initiative process.
The “anti-8’s”/pro-gay marriage crowd have vowed to bring the issue up again in 2010 by initiative to repeal Prop. 8 (most likely). So this issue is far from resolved.
My personal take is that most folks will tire of the bombast and vote for gay marriage just to shut them up.