Law & the Courts

Against Redefining Marriage — and the Republic

Justice Anthony Kennedy (Chip Somodevilla/Getty)

‘Supporters of same-sex marriage have achieved considerable success persuading their fellow citizens — through the democratic process — to adopt their view,” Chief Justice John Roberts writes in his dissent from the Supreme Court’s decision today. “That ends today.”

In most states that already recognized same-sex marriage, the democratic process had been shut down by courts. But this coda is one more blow against the idea that judges should interpret our laws, not write them.

RELATED: More Supreme Court Coverage

Because marriage is a fundamental right enshrined in the Constitution, five justices of the Supreme Court wrote Friday, every state must recognize it to include homosexual couples. Thus ended their argument.

The problem, naturally, is that whether marriage applies to same-sex couples depends on what marriage is. The Constitution is silent on that question, and judges should be too.

The majority points out how marriage has evolved over millennia — though hardly beyond recognition — and suggests it now must encompass homosexual relationships. But marriage evolved as societies and governments did — not as the result of imperious court decisions. Until the last several years, capped by this decision. This sloppy, arrogant precedent should worry even Americans who rejoice at the result.

Same-sex marriage is not a good idea by judicial fiat, but it is not a good idea by democratic assent, either.

We, of course, do not: Same-sex marriage is not a good idea by judicial fiat, but it is not a good idea by democratic assent, either. The majority of Americans seem to have turned on the traditional, conjugal definition of marriage, but it is the wise one — indeed, the only coherent one.

The majority opinion, by Justice Anthony Kennedy, has almost nothing in the way of constitutional argument for why marriage must extend to a class — people of the same sex — to which it has never been applied, in any society or legal system, until the last couple of decades. Pointing to other decisions striking down restrictions on the historical definition of marriage, as the majority did, does not justify redefining it. Kennedy writes correctly that courts should rule on violations of individual rights, but does not come near explaining how limiting marriage to its traditional definition amounts to such a violation.

#related#The majority offers little more than hand-waving about the slippery slope where all this points. Religious institutions will still have protection under the First Amendment, they say, to “teach” their opposition to same-sex marriage, but the extent of that liberty is not defined. History suggests it could be rapidly curtailed — to prevent religious institutions from having codes prohibiting employees from engaging in homosexual relationships, for instance, or even, someday, forcing the institutions themselves to perform same-sex ceremonies. The majority opinion offers no standard for where freedom of conscience may protect individuals. And if marriage is a fundamental right and the court must update its meaning with the times, what stands between this opinion and legalized polygamy? (A decade or two?)

Those battles will now have to be fought on a legal landscape where invented constitutional imperatives regularly sweep aside democratically written law. The decision is a breathtaking arrogation of political power by the judiciary, a serious loss for the autonomy of the states and the people. Its damage will not be easily or soon undone.

RELATED: More Supreme Court Coverage

The Editors — The Editors comprise the senior editorial staff of the National Review magazine and website.

Most Popular

Politics & Policy

Students’ Anti-Gun Views

Are children innocents or are they leaders? Are teenagers fully autonomous decision-makers, or are they lumps of mental clay, still being molded by unfolding brain development? The Left seems to have a particularly hard time deciding these days. Take, for example, the high-school students from Parkland, ... Read More
PC Culture

Kill Chic

We live in a society in which gratuitous violence is the trademark of video games, movies, and popular music. Kill this, shoot that in repugnant detail becomes a race to the visual and spoken bottom. We have gone from Sam Peckinpah’s realistic portrayal of violent death to a gory ritual of metal ripping ... Read More

Romney Is a Misfit for America

Mitt’s back. The former governor of Massachusetts and occasional native son of Michigan has a new persona: Mr. Utah. He’s going to bring Utah conservatism to the whole Republican party and to the country at large. Wholesome, efficient, industrious, faithful. “Utah has a lot to teach the politicians in ... Read More
Law & the Courts

What the Second Amendment Means Today

The horrifying school massacre in Parkland, Fla., has prompted another national debate about guns. Unfortunately, it seems that these conversations are never terribly constructive — they are too often dominated by screeching extremists on both sides of the aisle and armchair pundits who offer sweeping opinions ... Read More

Fire the FBI Chief

American government is supposed to look and sound like George Washington. What it actually looks and sounds like is Henry Hill from Goodfellas: bad suit, hand out, intoning the eternal mantra: “F*** you, pay me.” American government mostly works by interposition, standing between us, the free people at ... Read More
Film & TV

Black Panther’s Circle of Hype

The Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU) first infantilizes its audience, then banalizes it, and, finally, controls it through marketing. This commercial strategy, geared toward adolescents of all ages, resembles the Democratic party’s political manipulation of black Americans, targeting that audience through its ... Read More