I know that the Supreme Court Justices of these United States don’t care about the opinions of a small time political blogger from Northern Illinois but, opine in your direction I must because what you are likely to do some time during this current term.
According to the esteemed Justice Clarence Thomas in a dissenting opinion Monday regarding the rest of the Courts refusal to hear a stay of a court order forcing the state of Alabama to allow same-sex marriages is on the cusp of striking down all state same-sex marriage bans in the Union.
This is a terrible and horrific proposition the Court is heading towards, nothing less than federalism itself is at stake should the Court rule in an activist fashion, to say nothing of the institution of marriage, which has and always must be defined as a union of one man and one woman.
Federalism is the concept, a Founding one, that each state would be free to set their own rules and laws pertaining to many matters(those not made exclusive to the federal government by the Constitution). One of those matters Federalism leaves up to the states to decide is the issue of marriage, because the Constitution is completely and totally silent on the topic.
Under Originalists thought(Justice Scalia can explain what that means to you), if the Constitution is silent on a matter, then by necessity of the 9th and 10th amendments, then it is left solely up to the states via their legislatures and ultimately the people to decide how a particular topic is to be handled.
In state after state either by referendum or by actions of the legislature practically every state in the nation had statue or Constitutional amendments defining marriage as that of a single man and a woman. It was, and still is, a rarity for a state legislature or the residents of a state to vote to approve of same-sex marriage.
It is only because of actions by lower courts and the Supreme Court that a crisis is at hand.
Activist in black robes are not now, nor were they ever the appropriate arbiters of the dispute over marriage.
That per view should and must remain with its appropriate caretakers, the people of a state and their duly elected representatives in their state legislatures.
They are the only ones who should be changing whether or not a state accepts same-sex marriage or chooses to condone only traditional marriage.
Should the Supreme Court opt to become an omnipotent Judicial legislature superior to and above the 9th and 10th amendments(and Federalism) then the people who are aghast at what the courts have been doing to the institution of marriage will be well within their rights to use Article V on the Constitution to reign-in or reverse the Judicial overreach.
If the Supreme Court forces same-sex marriage upon the whole of the nation, or continues to allow lower courts to force it upon the states one at a time, then be prepared to see the people lobby their federal representatives to have Congress pass on to the states for ratification an amendment protecting and/or restoring the traditional definition of marriage. Likewise, could be done of the state legislatures under the Article V convention of states process.
Make no mistake about it Mr. and Mrs. Supreme Court Justice we the people(who aren’t low information voters) take things like Federalism and the 9th and 10th amendments seriously and any usurpation of them on your part will be dealt with, mostly likely via term limiting members of the Court.
Respect Federalism and the 9th and 10th amendments and allow the states to choose how they want to define marriage.