No doubt, you have heard of this Supreme Court ruling today:
The Supreme Court has struck down part of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) this morning (read the ruling here) and subsequently also threw out the contentious Prop 8 appeal (read that decision here).
This might surprise some, but I agree: the FEDERAL government has no business defining marriage. It has no business in marriage at all. However, in throwing our Prop 8, the Supreme Court refused to uphold the ruling they had just made on DOMA, which is a contradicted in this ruling. This is an example of the complications that arise when we refuse to be honest with ourselves and others. This entire issue has become needlessly and hopelessly complicated – and it has happened because people refuse to uphold the law. With this ruling, SCOTUS just adds to the complications.
The Constitution guarantees each State a republican form of government:
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened), against domestic Violence.
OK, so what does “republic” mean?
1a (1) : a government having a chief of state who is not a monarch and who in modern times is usually a president (2) : a political unit (as a nation) having such a form of government
b (1) : a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law (2) : a political unit (as a nation) having such a form of government
c : a usually specified republican government of a political unit <the French Fourth Republic>
2: a body of persons freely engaged in a specified activity <the republic of letters>
3: a constituent political and territorial unit of the former nations of Czechoslovakia, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, or Yugoslavia
So, how can SCOTUS say the States have a right to define marriage, and then refuse to uphold the will of the people of that State when they TWICE vote to make a change to their State Constitution?
Proposition 8 was a California ballot proposition and a state constitutional amendment passed in the November 2008 state elections. The measure added a new provision, Section 7.5 of the Declaration of Rights, to the California Constitution, which provides that “only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.”
By restricting the recognition of marriage to opposite-sex couples, the proposition effectively overturned the California Supreme Court‘s ruling of In re Marriage Cases that same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry. The wording of Proposition 8 was precisely the same as that which had been found in Proposition 22, which had passed in 2000 and, as an ordinary statute, had been invalidated by the State Supreme Court in 2008. California’s State Constitution put Proposition 8 into immediate effect the day after the election. The proposition did not affect domestic partnerships in California, nor same-sex marriages performed before November 5, 2008.
By definition, a Constitutional Amendment cannot be held “unconstitutional.” So, when the people of California voted for prop 8 a second time – over the ruling of the States Supreme Court – the people were over-ruling the State Court. If they cannot do that, then they do not have a Republican form of government. If the State government will not defend the will of the people, then the people do not have a Republican form of government. If the Supreme Court will not uphold the Constitutional guarantee to provide each State with a Republican form of government, then the nation does not have a Republican form of government. This means we do not live under the rule of law but under that of man – which, in turn, means you and I are not free people but serfs.