|
DesMoinesRegister.com
Judges
need independence
to protect everyone's
rights
EDITORIAL, from the
Web, January 18, 2008
Opponents of same-sex marriage who
gathered at the Iowa Statehouse Wednesday marched, prayed and handed out
stickers saying "Let Us Vote" on a constitutional amendment that would limit
marriage to a man and a woman. That's a classic exercise of the First
Amendment rights of speech and assembly.
But they did something else that wasn't so admirable: By marching to the
Judicial Branch Building and packing the House galleries for Chief Justice
Marsha Ternus' State of the Judiciary address, they delivered a subtle but
menacing suggestion that judges who stray from popularly accepted rulings might
face consequences.
Judges are pretty well insulated from political pressure, but they are human,
and they may recall that an Iowa judge was nearly hanged by a mob during the
Depression.
Citizens have better ways to change court rulings they don't like without trying
to intimidate judges. Amending the Constitution is one option. In
this situation, however, that would be a mistake.
In the marriage case, an Iowa judge ruled that the rights secured by the
Constitution extend to all people, regardless of whether some people disapprove
of the behavior of other people. What the marriage-amendment advocates are
saying is they want the ability to vote to eliminate the rights of some people
they disapprove of.
It's hard to see where that ends. Some might want to eliminate the First
Amendment rights of same-sex marriage opponents to march through the Statehouse.
Ultimately, it becomes a battle of majority rule over constitutional rights.
Then the most powerful thing about the Constitution -- that it guards against a
tyranny of the majority -- is lost. And then, everybody loses.
|
