Judicial activism and the subsequent constitutional convention in Massachusetts are now being overshadowed by the blatantly undemocratic and illegal marriages in San Francisco. The somewhat reasonable debate beforehand, although infringing on the time-tested and essential security of traditional marriage, has morphed into civil disobedience and usurpation of citizens' powers.
The citizens of San Francisco voted clearly and came out against same-sex marriage, and California state law defines marriage as between a man and woman. Nonetheless, the mayor took it upon himself to defy the tenets of his office, the mandate of his constituents, and the legal structure of his city. This is a microcosmic example of the disregarding of not only democratic means of change but judicial and political structure. The San Francisco fiasco destroys city and state rights by making their regulations arbitrary and calling for the unelected Supreme Court to decide an issue of utmost cultural and social precedence. As a federalist, I am conflicted between trusting the states to deny these artificial rights and safeguarding policy against judicial activism.
In the end, Americans must rest their confidence in other respites. The judicial branch is uncertain. Executive leaders are bitterly divided. Thus, we are bound to the outcome of Congress and the Federal Marriage Amendment. Since the duly passed Defense of Marriage Act passed by Congress in 1996 did not stop those who would defy the public opinion against the issue, we must settle contention once and for all. Regardless of the nuances between civil unions and same sex marriage, the issue must not become a slippery slope for cultural vices. Americans must now individually stand for the good of all, not the pleasure of some, aided by autocracy of a few. A constitutional amendment is drastic, but at the same time we cannot afford one small segment tearing into the democratic and moral fabric of these United States.
Discrimination is not the issue in this case; protection of the democratic and republican political process must be proved.
We must keep the "We" in "We the people," not a privileged, fabulous few that want rights without regard to the citizens' opinions or political processes. It is our duty to promote the general welfare, as well as to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, and we must do that through protecting against this civil disobedience through a constitutional amendment. Many were quick to decry the placing of the Ten Commandments at the Courthouse in the South. If one man fighting for his beliefs cannot do so without diatribes about the separation of church and state, no other group should be allowed to defy the wishes of the majority. The hypocrisy of these two incidences demonstrates the need for a constitutional amendment - America should not stand for inequality in this way.
Rights by any other name may be as effective, but not as legitimate. Marriage license wrangling by one mayor constitutes not a triumph for civil rights, but usurpation of the freedoms for all. Gay marriage victories by any other method besides democracy cannot stand. Gay marriage by political antics will not stand. It may be propped up by assumptions and uncertainty, but the house that gay marriage built is one built on sand. A constitutional amendment must be passed in order to maintain the basic premise of democracy and republicanism in the political process. A few "I dos" in San Francisco cannot dictate the moral climate of the majority of Californians and Americans. I do not support this illegal stunt, I do not support the undemocratic pressure to make same-sex marriage legal, and I do not believe that gay marriage is constitutionally provided for. In sum, "I don't"
