President Bush is getting his workout today, again flinging around the term “activist judges”. It’s easy to label someone he doesn’t like. Call them names, put them down, and maybe they’ll go away. If not, at least he’ll have “the people” behind him. The majority wins, no matter what.
“People need to be involved in this decision,” Bush said. “Marriage ought to be defined by the people not by the courts. And I’m watching it carefully.”
The courts are led by people. Those people are trained to interpret the law. When the law conflicts with the Constitution, as it may or may not in this case, it’s the predefined role of the Judiciary to resolve it.
There is a term in software development used when something doesn’t work as hoped but works according to requirements. The term is “works as designed”. Some people wish to amend the Constitution, which is changing the requirements. Until we amend the Constitution to include the belief that all citizens are not equal, the legal system is working as designed. I’m being repetitive in this point, but I fail to understand the error in the process.
Concerning marriage licenses being issued in San Francisco, President Bush had this to say:
“I have watched carefully what’s happening in San Francisco, where licenses were being issued, even though the law states otherwise,” Bush said. “I have consistently stated that I’ll support law to protect marriage between a man and a woman. Obviously these events are influencing my decision.”
Marriage between a man and a woman is not under attack. Equal protection and privilege under the law is the issue.
The trouble that President Bush is having seems to be the morality of same-sex marriage. The Constitution, while influenced by the Bible, is still the supreme document of the United States. The Constitution and the Bill of Rights protect every citizen, and are slowly being interpreted to apply to every citizen. Until everyone enjoys the benefits, situations like this will continue.
The civil institution of marriage must be dictated by the Constitution’s equal protection. However, any church that chooses not to perform same-sex marriage ceremonies is entitled to exercise that right. The law can’t and shouldn’t force religion to change. But the separation of church and state exists for a reason. Trying to encode theology into law isn’t appropriate when the theology involves suggested, non-physical harm and negative consequences.
I know I keep writing about this, but it’s what I care about right now, so this is what I have to give.