NEWS
Local
Mind, Body & Soul
Sports
Archives
OPINION
Editorials
Letters
Columnists
Message Boards
A&E
Our Picks
Calendar
Movies
Books
LIVING
Horoscopes
Comics
Classifieds
Obituaries
Salt Lake METRO
Subscribe
Advertise
Contact Us
|  | Opinion 
The Silent Supremes The United States Supreme Court sidestepped the issue of gay marriage on Monday, Nov. 29. Conservative lawyers and activists were trying to get the Court to strike down the ruling by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court allowing same-gender couples to legally wed within the state.
But the Court decided, without comment, not to hear arguments on the case, effectively allowing the decision to stand.
Many are wondering where the nation’s highest court stands on the subject now. It’s a good question. With a number of legal challenges to marriage law in states across the nation working their way up the judicial branch, it’s only a matter of time before the Supreme Court is going to have to step into this debate one way or the other.
Could it be that the Supreme Court is ready, even now, to grant us full marriage rights, but that they’re playing a very smart game? With the hateful rhetoric against “activist judges” over the past year, maybe it’s too soon for the ultimate judicial authority to enter this struggle. Perhaps they are simply waiting for the heat of public discourse to die down a bit before they weigh in.
Opinions are changing. In Massachusetts, lawmakers in favor of gay marriage didn’t suffer for their positions in the last election. In California, where a majority of voters outlawed gay marriage several years ago with the Knight Initiative, public opinion polls are shifting more and more toward allowing such marriages. Of all the states that passed anti-gay marriage measures last month, Oregon’s passed by the narrowest margin and the fight may not be over. All these states have at least one thing in common: they are places where gay and lesbian couples have been able to marry, even if only for a short period of time.
Perhaps all the nation needs, before our high courts rule on the subject, is some time to get used to the idea. Some time to see loving, committed couples proudly declaring their love for one another.
Our founding fathers weren’t so dumb when they structured a three branch government with checks and balances. The role of the judiciary has always been to protect the rights of the minority from the tyranny of the majority. A role we’ve praised them for in past cases such as Brown v. Board of Education (striking down segregation) and Loving v. Virginia (allowing interracial marriage). Neither of those decisions was popular with the voting public at the time, but have dramatically impacted the social justice of our country.
At the same time, in the information/communication age of instant messages, cell phones and CNN, if the Supreme Court were to subvert the majority opinion so clearly and too soon, the backlash could be horrible. The only thing that trumps a Supreme Court ruling in the delicate check and balance system of our country is a federal Constitutional amendment, and that’s a road we need not encourage any moderate people to consider.
So we’ll wait. And we hope that despite which ultra-conservative judges Dubya stacks the court with over the next few years, when the time does come for the courts to settle the matter, fairness, reason and equality will prevail. | | |
