On Thursday, a federal appeals court rejected arguments that the Constitution requires states to perform or even to recognize same-sex marriages. The appeals court was wrong, and now that the matter appears destined to arrive at the Supreme Court, the justices should end any doubt about that.
On Thursday, a federal appeals court rejected arguments that the Constitution requires states to perform or even to recognize same-sex marriages. The appeals court was wrong, and now that the matter appears destined to arrive at the Supreme Court, the justices should end any doubt about that.
Thursday’s ruling from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit repeatedly argued that judges and lawyers should not drive the national move toward same-sex marriage. There is good principle behind that position. Settlements that emerge from democratic processes are more likely to be accepted as legitimate, more resistant to criticism and less of a rallying point for culture warriors. Judges should generally wield their powers with restraint.
But that principle doesn’t apply when the rights of a minority are being denied by majority will. If the question were put to a vote now, same-sex marriage would probably prevail in a large number of states. Public opinion has shifted with amazing speed over the past decade. But in a number of states, people would likely still vote no. And if you believe, as we do, that the government can’t pick and choose which couples should be allowed to marry, then the Supreme Court can’t defer to that popular will. The Constitution empowers and instructs the courts to protect the rights of minorities in cases such as these.
As if basic fairness weren’t enough, there is another reason the Supreme Court should not follow the 6th Circuit’s reasoning: The justices have already let the cat out of the bag. Over the last year, the majority of federal courts across the country that have considered state same-sex marriage bans have overturned them. Rather than hearing challenges to several of those rulings, the justices last month decided to let them stand, eliminating the stays that had kept the rulings from going into effect and allowing same-sex marriages to proceed in the states in question. To backtrack now and allow those states to reinstate their bans on same-sex marriage would be messy, confusing and hardly fair to those couples who would have to figure out if they are still married, to those who didn’t get in just under the wire or to those who would be considered married in some parts of the country and not in others.
The moral and practical sides of the argument now both favor same-sex marriage advocates. The Supreme Court should say so.
— From the Washington Post