|
365Gay.com
 |
Attacks
on Independent Courts
Are
Attacks on America
By Kevin
Cathcart, Lambda Legal Executive Director
From the
Web, September 15, 2007
|
| |
|
We knew it wouldn't take long before
the Iowa judge who struck down the state's ban on marriage for same-sex couples
was pegged an "activist judge" by the usual suspects. They say they are
defending "traditional" marriage and our democracy itself. But their
attacks on the judicial system are about as un-democratic as you can get.
Mitt Romney, the former governor of Massachusetts and Republican presidential
hopeful led the pack, weighing in just minutes after the ruling was announced.
Clearly without enough time to read the 63-page decision, he called it "…
another example of an activist court and unelected judges trying to redefine
marriage and disregard the will of the people …"
Meanwhile, in Iowa some politicians used the ruling to call for a state
constitutional amendment that would restrict marriage to one man and one woman.
Senator Paul McKinley claimed most Republicans "believed a constitutional
amendment was necessary because all it takes is one person in a black robe to
declare a law invalid." Christopher Rants, his colleague in the assembly,
reiterated this point, blaming state Democrats for opposing the amendment and
"trying to appease special interest groups."
What is going on here? It's old-fashioned antigay sentiment wrapped up in
attacks on America's independent courts. The problem is these tactics are
as dangerous as the homophobia that inspires them.
When politicians attack judges who are simply doing their job enforcing the
Constitution, it is a strike against our government itself. The founders
of this country recognized the danger of placing too much power in any one part
of the government. To avoid this, they separated authority into three
branches, the legislative, executive and judicial. The branches exercise
"checks and balances" over one another, to ensure that the law of the land is
upheld and that the core principles of liberty and equality are available to
everyone.
Within this system, the courts have always been the appropriate place for people
to seek help when their constitutional rights have been denied. America's
founders agreed that there were certain rights so fundamental that they cannot
be taken away, regardless of majority sentiment. Whether the issues
invoked are considered controversial or not, even the fervor of 99 percent of
the public does not entitle people in power to deprive those in the 1 percent
minority of their fundamental constitutional rights.
Under America's system of government, there are some things that we simply do
not get to vote on. We have no say, for instance, about whether others get
to practice a religion, engage in free speech or have children. Without a
powerful reason like a person's inability to consent, "the people" also don't
get to vote on whether or whom heterosexuals may marry. Why should they
have the right to vote on whether or whom gay people may marry?
The Constitution protects us all against the ardor of those who believe
passionately in the rightness of their cause. Regardless of the strength
of their belief or how many may join them, they are not entitled to impose their
will on others. Nor can they attack a court that rules in favor of
fairness with desperate cries of "activist judge."
Politicians' strong words against the courts may win them support from some
people at the polls, but this comes at great risk to the system of government
upon which this country was founded. That means anyone who attacks
independent courts is, in essence, attacking America. We need to stand up
and denounce these attacks in Iowa and anywhere else they occur. Our
courts, our Constitution and our country depend on it.
|
