Attempts to amend the U.S. Constitution to ban gay marriage failed today. Here’s a statement made by Senator Bill Frist (R-TN) following the defeat:
Will activist judges not elected by the American people destroy the institution of marriage, or will the people protect marriage as the best way to raise children? My vote is with the people.
I’ll break down that quote phrase by phrase, first explaining what Frist is trying to say and then giving my reason for why he’s wrong.
Will activist judges […]
Frist employs a talking point often uttered by President Bush, meaning that these judges are going out on their own and trying to write law according to their own principles. An activist judge is one whose ruling you don’t agree with.
Judges are selected because of their keen understanding of legal matters. It’s their job to interpret the law. The Justices of the Massachusetts Supreme Court didn’t just make their decisions based on personal inclinations. They released reasoned opinions explaining their ruling.
[…] not elected by the American people […]
Paired with “activist,” this phrase is intended to paint judges as renegades who sit on their benches and make decisions in a vacuum with complete disregard of the Will of the People. You didn’t elect them, yet they can overturn laws? How dare they!
In fact, the framers of the Constitution had a very good reason that judges be appointed and not elected. The Bill of Rights protects the rights of all even if their beliefs are unpopular. Judges need to be able to rule in favor of the minority — something we could not trust them to do if they knew they had to campaign for their jobs afterward. Basics of American law: elected representatives write the laws, appointed judges can overturn them. Checks. Balances.
[…] destroy the institution of marriage […]
In Frist’s definition, Marriage is a union of a man and a woman. If homosexuals were allowed to marry, the definition of that word would have to change and therefore the institution would be destroyed.
Frist is right about the semantics but wrong about the destruction of the institution. When gays are allowed to marry, the definition of marriage will have to change to include same-sex couples, but the institution will not change because including extra members into the definition won’t change the nature of the current members’ lives. Marriage isn’t a club where your rights diminish as more people are inducted.
Each couple’s marriage is their own. Some spouses live together. Some live in different cities. Some have children. Some do not. Some go to church. Some do not. The relation between any person and his/her spouse has no bearing on any others’. When I get married, nothing will change about anyone else’s marriage. If someone gets divorced, nothing will change about my marriage. Each couple’s marriage is their own.
[…] will the people protect marriage as the best way to raise children?
Frist sees gay marriage as a threat to the family structure. He’s trying to appeal to those who are worried about the constant decline of nuclear families in light of less traditional arrangements like the single parent home. And of course, the most dangerous degradation of the American Family would be two gay men raising children together, corrupting them with every lisp, limp-wristed gesture, and independent thought.
Again, the marriages of other people have no bearing on any others’. Straight couples will still be allowed to raise children.
My vote is with the people.
Your vote is one on the side of hatred and discrimination. Your side lost today.