Dear Chief Justice Silverstein and Fellow Justices:
During its deliberations on same-sex marriage, the court recognized that marriage, defined as being between a man and a woman, "has existed for millennia and across civilizations." The court also acknowledged that the institution called marriage transcends the government, our constitution, and any man-made authority as it existed long before any such authority structures came into being.
If this is the case, who are we to redefine what constitutes a marriage. The question is not whether or not we believe marriage should include or exclude same-sex couples. Regardless of our beliefs, we must humbly submit to the fact that it is not within the power of any court or government to define what marriage is or what marriage is not. In a democracy, an argument could be made that such a right lies with the people. (This would exclude the court system entirely and leave the decision up to state-by-state referendums.) I and many others believe, however, that the right to define marriage lies with God who created the first man and woman and put them together in a union -- the first and original marriage. As the Supreme Court's dissenting opinion stated, "The Constitution leaves no doubt" that defining what constitutes a marriage is outside the bounds of any country's justice system.
It is tempting to confuse popular preference with what should be law, especially in a democracy. But, as was borne out in the failed city-state of ancient Athens, the will of the masses is not always right. However, in this case, the masses may be on to something. When the Supreme Court legalized same-sex marriage, it 'relied on its desire to remake society according to its own 'new insight.'' It also struck down the marriage laws of over half of the States -- laws that had either been put in place by referendum or by legislation approved by those elected to represent the people of that state.
The court abandoned its usual restraint to trample on democracy in progress. If, in fact, the same-sex marriage movement would have inevitably advanced to the point where a majority in all fifty states approved of such unions, shouldn't the people of those states decide when that time might be?
By taking this risk and mandating that same-sex marriage be recognized across the nation, the Court has only facilitated the continued division of American society. It has also placed at risk those who justifiably oppose same-sex marriage for reasons the Court itself has admitted -- that marriage as we know it has been in existence for millennia and that defining marriage is not something a judicial system should be engaged in. Already, conflict has arisen with lower judges in states that had laws banning same-sex marriage ordering county clerks who disagree with same-sex marriage to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Some clerks have complied, others have refused, and, at least in one case, a clerk decided not to issue marriage licenses to anyone until the issue is resolved. Hence, the Court has ensured that many dark and difficult days are ahead for the nation.
Sincerely,
Michael Elderson
YOU ARE READING
Letters to the Supreme Court
General FictionA concerned citizen writes a series of letters to America's Supreme Court justices, encouraging them to stand for truth, righteousness, and true justice in the United States.
