The Corner

Right and Left Pepper Olson on Prop 8

On Tuesday, perhaps for the first time in the litigation surrounding California’s Proposition 8, attorney Ted Olson (the advocate for redefining marriage) faced some tough questions, from both conservatives and liberals on the Supreme Court.

At one point, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy noted that same-sex marriage was a very new experiment — barely a decade old — and questioned whether the justices are well-suited to judge the results of that experiment against an institution with thousands of years of history. 

As researchers at the Heritage Foundation have noted, the social-science evidence is clear that the best environment for children is a married biological mother and father. We have much more to learn about the effects of changing family forms on children, so, as Justice Kennedy remarked, those who wish to overturn the California law are really asking the Court to go into “uncharted waters.” 

Trying to push back on this idea, Olson suggested that Loving v. Virginia, the case in which the Supreme Court struck down Virginia’s law against interracial marriage, also entered unknown territory when it was decided in the 1960s. Kennedy quickly dismissed that argument, noting that interracial marriage was hundreds of years old in common-law countries. 

Justice Sonia Sotomayor seemed to be channeling some of Ryan T. Anderson’s research from Heritage when she asked what state restrictions ever could exist if marriage is a fundamental right: incest, age, or number of people? Olson didn’t give a limiting principle and instead leaned on previous cases.

Conservatives also peppered Olson with questions. Justice Antonin Scalia, agreeing with Olson’s premise that it is the justices’ job to say what the law is, asked: “When did it become unconstitutional to define marriage as between a man and woman? Was it 1791, 1868, or some other date?”

Olson tried to turn the question around and asked when interracial marriages became unconstitutional, but Justice Scalia answered, “Easy . . . at the time that the equal-protection clause was adopted.” 

Lacking an adequate answer, Olson then dragged out the Left’s “living Constitution” argument: “It was constitutional when we as a culture determined that sexual orientation is a characteristic of individuals that they cannot control and that . . . There’s no specific date in time. This is an evolutionary cycle.” The Constitution, according to Olson, is evolving based on culture

Another major theme of the morning’s oral argument was whether the people or the courts should decide the definition of marriage. As John Eastman argues in a Heritage Legal Memorandum, the risks of taking the decision away from the people are too great and suggest that the Court should not enshrine in the Constitution a right to same-sex marriage. 

Of course, the pro–Prop 8 advocates also got some tough questions, too, so no outcome is clear.

But most important, this debate has been robust in the public square — as the events outside the Court today demonstrated — and should be allowed to continue. When citizens hear both sides, by and large they support marriage between a man and a woman. (And Republicans might want to take notice: Marriage fared better than their presidential ticket last November in the four states where it was on the ballot.)

Regardless, the decision should be made by the people and their representatives, not usurped by the courts. That would only damage the Supreme Court’s reputation and launch another culture war by precluding political debate, in much the same way Roe v. Wade did 40 years ago. 

— Derrick Morgan is vice president for domestic and economic policy at The Heritage Foundation.

Most Popular

Politics & Policy

Broward’s Cowards

It is impossible to imagine circumstances under which Broward County sheriff Scott Israel could attempt to perform his duties with the confidence of the public. He should resign immediately, and if, as he promises, he refuses to go quietly, then he should be shown the door by the people he professes to ... Read More

Courage: The Greatest of Virtues

EDITOR’S NOTE: The following is Jonah Goldberg’s weekly “news”letter, the G-File. Subscribe here to get the G-File delivered to your inbox on Fridays. Dear Reader (Or Listener), As the reporter assigned the job of writing the article about all of Sidney Blumenthal’s friends and supporters told his ... Read More

My American Dream

This morning, at 8 a.m., I did something I’ve wanted to do for as long as I can remember: I became an American. I first applied for a visa in early 2011, and since then I have slowly worked my way through the system — first as a visa-holder, then as a permanent resident (green card), and, finally, as a ... Read More
Politics & Policy

CNN’s Shameful Town Hall

CNN recently hosted an anti-gun town hall featuring a number of grieving children and parents from Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Fla., who aimed their ire at the National Rifle Association, politicians peripherally associated with the NRA, and anyone who didn’t say exactly what they wanted to hear. ... Read More

The Gun-Control Debate Could Break America

Last night, the nation witnessed what looked a lot like an extended version of the famous “two minutes hate” from George Orwell’s novel 1984. During a CNN town hall on gun control, a furious crowd of Americans jeered at two conservatives, Marco Rubio and Dana Loesch, who stood in defense of the Second ... Read More