Gay Marriage, the Supreme Court, and the Constitution

Is gay marriage a constitutional matter for the Supreme Court to decide?



Should marriage be redefined by the courts, specifically the Supreme Court?

Mark Levin cites an AP story from earlier this month in which Justice Anthony Kennedy expressed his belief that the Supreme Court is deciding too many issues that should be decided by Congress.

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy said Wednesday that congressional lawmakers need to maintain the nation’s balance of power by being able to compromise, expressing concerns that the high court is increasingly the venue for deciding politically charged issues such as gay marriage, health care and immigration.

Kennedy, a former Sacramento law school professor, was asked by reporters whether he thought the court was deciding too many issues that can be decided by Congress.

“I think it’s a serious problem. A democracy should not be dependent for its major decisions on what nine unelected people from a narrow legal background have to say,” Kennedy said. “And I think it’s of tremendous importance for our political system to show the rest of the world — and we have to show ourselves first — that democracy works because we can reach agreement on a principle basis.”

Levin shares his thoughts related to the Supreme Court's role in this case.

MARK LEVIN: Here's a quaint thought. You know, we do have amendment procedures in the United States Constitution. If the overwhelming majority of Americans through their state legislatures believe that the Constitution should actually be amended, not rewritten by this what I call this ongoing Constitutional Convention in Washington, but I mean, actually amended to define marriage as something more than a man and a woman, then why don't they try that?

If Congress believes, if two-thirds of the members of the House and the Senate really believe, they really believe this is a fundamental right, a liberty, then they ought to make their case to each other, because two-thirds of both bodies, the House and the Senate, can propose a constitutional amendment to the states and three-fourths can ratify.

I am tired of our Constitution being amended by the courts, by presidential fiat, by congressional statute. I'm sick and tired of it. You and me, we show fidelity to our Constitution. We talk about our Constitution. We talk about the processes, the history, and this, that, and the rest.

They don't give a damn on the Left. The ends justifies the means. That's it. And if they don't like the outcome of a vote, like on Proposition 8, then they claim it's a constitutional right, or as I have said over the weeks, a civil right. When people out there oppose what the Left is doing, they're said to be pushing wedge issues. When the Left pushes exactly the same issue from a different perspective, it's said to be a civil right.

Bottom line: Levin believes, "If the Supreme Court is faithful to its responsibilities, it will rule no federal jurisdiction, period. No federal jurisdiction. Period."

Interesting.