Judicial review was a relatively early addition (not firmly in the constitution, though), but it was never supposed to usurp legitimate authority from the legislatures - rather only when there was a legitimate question of constitutionality.
It seems that people have started to use this exception as a tool to usurp the legislature whenever one party disagrees with the decision and cannot approach a majority. People brandish "unconstitutional" like it was "hello". If you can find this unconstitutional, you can find a graded tax code unconstitutional and on and on.
We should use the legislature to debate, write and nullify policy unless policy is in direct contradiction of the constitution and its amendments. I don't believe that marriage policy is in direct contradiction of the Constitution, so why would I support a Supreme court that overturns legitimate policy based on a foreign and personal moral code?
These are two separate arguments: Whether marriage laws are in contradiction of the Constitution (I say the are not) and whether Marriage should be extended beyond the male female relationship by the legislature (I say they should not).
It has also come to my attention that Massachusetts never enacted Gay marriage through its legislative process. I had always thought that Romney put "whether or not the state should allow marriage onto the ballot"; when in reality he put a gay marriage ban out to referendum in response to to strong arming of policy by the Supreme Court of Massachusetts. The rejection of the constitutional ban is not the same as the acceptance of Gay marriage in Mass.
So in a sense no U.S. State has decided that Gay marriage is something that they want by either referendum OR legislative decision. Interesting. This is truly a hijacking of the system.
Bookmarks