My social media are blowing up in celebration over the Supreme Court’s surprise move this morning:
With not a single dependable hint of its own constitutional view of same-sex marriage, the Supreme Court in one fell swoop on Monday cleared the way for gays and lesbians to wed in a batch of new states — starting first in five more states, and probably adding six more in the coming weeks. If that happens in all eleven, it will mean that same-sex marriages would then be legal in thirty states and Washington, D.C.
In seven one-line orders, released without explanation and with no report on how any Justice voted, the Court surprisingly refused to review any same-sex marriage case now before it and, in the process, prepared to lift a series of orders that had delayed such marriages while the issue remained in the Court. Almost no one had expected that to happen.
. . . as a direct result of Monday’s action, same-sex marriages can occur when existing lower-court rulings against state bans go into effect in Virginia in the Fourth Circuit, Indiana and Wisconsin in the Seventh Circuit, and Oklahoma and Utah in the Tenth Circuit.
A number of hardcore Christians who call themselves “pro-family” are understandably upset about this:
It's civil disobedience time in #Oklahoma + other states: OK (76% opposed) offers the best chance to reject the SCOTUS ruling on SSM. #tcot
— Peter LaBarbera (@PeterLaBarbera) October 6, 2014
"We the People"? Yeah, right. Men + women in black robes have just disenfranchised millions of voters in #OK, #WI, #VA, #UT + #IN #tcot #ssm
— Peter LaBarbera (@PeterLaBarbera) October 6, 2014
I’m afraid Mr. LaBarbera does have a serious point here, this is one of those unpleasant times when people like me have to choose between our commitment to equal rights and our dedication to rule by consent of the governed. One of those things has to give, in this case.
The primary good of democracy is that it serves as a check on tyranny, creating a system by which executives and lawmakers are held accountable to the will of the people, so as to prevent an unaccountable slide downwards into political oppression. But what if the people themselves are demanding a “tyranny of the majority” by which the many oppress the few? Well, then we would need some sort of explicitly counter-majoritarian force dedicated to upholding basic human rights, such as the right to self-ownership (even if you’re black) and the right to vote (even if you’re a woman) and the right to marry (even if you’re trying to marry a black woman). Hell, I’ll throw in the right to freedom of speech, even if you’re working for Citizens United.
I’m guessing that few to none of my readers agrees with the Surpreme Court every time it rules on these basic civil liberties issues, but I can honestly say as an Oklahoman that I’m relieved that we will no longer be putting marriage equality up to a popular vote.
