A Story About Fearsome Activist Judges

9 June, 2006. 585 words.

I haven’t said much about the so-called Marriage Protection Amendment, but I’d like to say a few words about it now.

I would think it goes without saying that the recent activity on the MPA is just an election year ploy by Republicans to boost poll numbers. I don’t consider that good or bad, it just is. On the content of the amendment, considering that there is already a law on the books — the Defense of Marriage Act — defining marriage, which does not require states to recognize same-sex marriages from other states, a Constitutional amendment seems pretty redundant to me.

You would think that would put an end to the issue for everyone, but apparently Republicans are still concerned about so-called “activist judges.” If you didn’t know, activist judges are always on the prowl, looking for ways to undermine American Democracy. Activist judges are considered bad because they rule against the popular opinion of the common folk. This is a bad thing because of the Scott Adams principle of mob rule: The majority is always morally right, and the minority is always morally wrong. This has been proven time and time again in America with slavery, women’s suffrage, the civil rights movement, and so on.

Anyway, the fear is that some activist judge will rule that the existing Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional. I would think this fearsome person would have to be a U.S. Supreme Court activist judge since it’s a federal law, but that’s just an assumption on my part — I don’t really know anything about law. Assuming that’s true, it would actually take five U.S. Supreme Court activist judges to form a majority.

But before any fearsome activist judges could ruin Democracy, an unsuspecting gay couple would have to go to Massachusetts and get married, then move to, say, Alabama and demand that their married status be recognized. If the gay couple should somehow live long enough to make it to the trial (avoiding all the death threats by helpful Evangelicals), the U.S. Supreme Court would have to step in and judge the constitutionality of the DMA. And if that happens… well, I think we can all agree that life as we know it on this planet would never be the same.

Let’s look at some of the consequences. First of all, judges would have to make a ruling on a controversial issue. And that’s certainly not anything we want our judges to be doing in America. Who do they think they are, trying to settle our differences? Suppose the activist judges win? Suppose those elitist holier-than-though judges decide that gay people should have substantially similar legal rights as married people? And not just in Massachusetts, but all over the country? Married couples might wake up and say, “Gosh, honey, I feel like the institution of our marriage has been compromised today.” “Yeah,” the spouse will agree. “It’s as if the government no longer thinks we’re legally superior to gay people. If only our founding fathers had thought to put that into the Constitution.” “Yeah. Say, do you feel strangely attracted to someone of your own gender this morning?” “Now that you mention it, I do.” “Well, honey, I guess we’ll have to get divorced and put the children in an orphanage, then.” And that would be the end of civilization.

Fortunately, even though all of America would plunge into divorce and anarchy, that Massachusetts gay couple would be able to live out their dream life in Alabama.

Related