Tomatoes and Same-Sex 'Marriage'
Some time ago, Associate Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg mused that perhaps the Court erred in handing down its decision in Roe v. Wade. Perhaps, she thought, it would have been better to have waited until public sentiment caught up with the Court instead of ensuring that the issue of abortion would remain controversial by ruling prematurely.
Well, guess what, Madam Justice? You guys have done it again. Your ruling on same-sex "marriage" does not- despite the wishful suggestions of many on the Left- "settle the issue," except at least for the moment in a legal sense. Marriage re-definition has now joined abortion as an issue in which the public remains deeply divided, people's deepest moral and religious beliefs are unavoidably engaged- and recourse to the democratic process is illegitimately closed.
It's happened before, of course, In Dred Scott v. Sanford, the Supreme Court ruled that black people were "so far inferior" to white folks that they had no constitutional rights. The ruling did not prevent the civil war, and it certainly didn't settle the matter.
My favorite parallel to the "marriage" ruling, though, is Nix v. Hedden. in it, the Court held that- contrary to botanical science- the tomato is a vegetable rather than a fruit.
Which does not, of course, make it any the less a fruit (having as it does multiple seeds). No more does Roe make the killing of one's unborn offspring a constitutional right. No more does Dred Scott make African-Americans sub-human and lacking in constitutional rights.
And no more does the Court's ruling redefining marriage make it possible for a man to marry another man, or a woman another woman.
Even the Supreme Court lacks the authority to overrule nature- or re-define a pre-political institution that existed long before there were such things as courts.
No, the matter is not "settled." Nor will it ever be.
Well, guess what, Madam Justice? You guys have done it again. Your ruling on same-sex "marriage" does not- despite the wishful suggestions of many on the Left- "settle the issue," except at least for the moment in a legal sense. Marriage re-definition has now joined abortion as an issue in which the public remains deeply divided, people's deepest moral and religious beliefs are unavoidably engaged- and recourse to the democratic process is illegitimately closed.
It's happened before, of course, In Dred Scott v. Sanford, the Supreme Court ruled that black people were "so far inferior" to white folks that they had no constitutional rights. The ruling did not prevent the civil war, and it certainly didn't settle the matter.
My favorite parallel to the "marriage" ruling, though, is Nix v. Hedden. in it, the Court held that- contrary to botanical science- the tomato is a vegetable rather than a fruit.
Which does not, of course, make it any the less a fruit (having as it does multiple seeds). No more does Roe make the killing of one's unborn offspring a constitutional right. No more does Dred Scott make African-Americans sub-human and lacking in constitutional rights.
And no more does the Court's ruling redefining marriage make it possible for a man to marry another man, or a woman another woman.
Even the Supreme Court lacks the authority to overrule nature- or re-define a pre-political institution that existed long before there were such things as courts.
No, the matter is not "settled." Nor will it ever be.
Comments