Letters to the Supreme Court

Episodes 22-24

Letter Twenty-Two

Dear Chief Justice Silverstein and Fellow Justices:

There are many who feel as though the Supreme Court overstepped its bounds by ruling in favor of legalizing same-sex marriage nationwide. A 2002 Supreme Court ruling stated that the 'legitimacy of this Court ultimately rests "upon the respect accorded to its judgments."' In a democracy, such as ours, how can any ruling stand when many feel that the justices have overstepped their bounds not just in this case but in others as well.

The dissenting opinion stated, "Respect flows from the perception—and reality—that we exercise humility and restraint in deciding cases according to the Constitution and law. The role of the Court envisioned by the majority today, however, is anything but humble or restrained. Over and over, the majority exalts the role of the judiciary in delivering social change. In the majority's telling, it is the courts, not the people, who are responsible for making 'new dimensions of freedom...apparent to new generations,' for providing 'formal discourse' on social issues, and for ensuring 'neutral discussions, without scornful or disparaging commentary.'"

In the eyes of many, the Supreme Court pushed aside the still ongoing public debate over whether or not same-sex couples should have all the legal rights and benefits of married heterosexuals, whether or not same-sex unions are detrimental to society, and whether or not children suffer from being raised by same-sex parents. There has been extensive litigation regarding these issues, as well as numerous books, scholarly writings, studies, and reports. More than 100 "friend of the court" briefs were filed in this case alone. There is tremendous interest in this matter and many in this country feel that, by the Court's ruling, the benefits of further public discussion has been stripped away.

Sincerely,

Michael Elderson

Letter Twenty-Three

Dear Chief Justice Silverstein and Fellow Justices:

Is there anything to be said about a people ruling themselves? Many conservatives who oppose same-sex marriage were not seeking a Supreme Court ruling that banned same-sex marriage in the United States. Rather, they desired that the court would let state laws banning same-sex marriage stand and allow the people of each state to vote their opinion on the issue or elect legislators who would propose legislation that represented the will of the people of that state.

What would have been the benefit of this allowance?

By allowing the people of each state to decide whether or not their government would recognize same-sex unions and treat them the same as traditional marriages, the federal government would save itself from igniting mass displeasure with the judicial system. Those people in some regions, such as the American South, where traditional views still hold fast, would have been able to dictate the course of their immediate environment. People in other regions, such as the West Coast and New England, would have been able to dictate the course of their immediate environment.

If the same-sex marriage issue is of great importance to a citizen, that citizen would have the prerogative to move to a state that allowed or denied same-sex marriage according to that person's preference.

Such a ruling would have also inadvertently set up a test case. Within a few years, the nation would have been able to see the effects of allowing or denying (recognizing or not recognizing) same-sex marriages. Then the nation would have been able to move forward in a wiser fashion.

In the words of the dissenting opinion, "Those who founded our country would not recognize the majority's conception of the judicial role. They after all risked their lives and fortunes for the precious right to govern themselves. They would never have imagined yielding that right on a question of social policy to unaccountable and unelected judges. And they certainly would not have been satisfied by a system empowering judges to override policy judgments so long as they do so after 'a quite extensive discussion.'"

As the ruling in another Supreme Court case made clear last year: "It is demeaning to the democratic process to presume that voters are not capable of deciding an issue of
this sensitivity on decent and rational grounds."

Sincerely,

Michael Elderson

Letter Twenty-Four

Dear Chief Justice Silverstein and Fellow Justices:

Careful observation of human nature will reveal that a people are more likely to rebel against a law if they feel that that law has been forced upon them. The Supreme Court Justices who ruled in favor of legalizing same-sex marriage presented themselves as laying the issue to rest, deciding once and for all.

Historians will tell us that the American colonies would have remained under British rule for a much longer time if it had not been for King George and the British Parliament who felt that they could tax the colonies and give them no say in the matter. At first, the colonies rebelled, not because they sought independence from England, but because they felt their rights and privileges were being trampled on. When Britain responded with punitive measures, the colonies decided to seek their independence, becoming patriots for the cause of freedom.

Many anticipate that such a reaction will occur among those who oppose same-sex marriage, particularly if they feel that the government will force them to accept, condone, sanction, or abide by it in their churches, businesses, or educational institutions.

This view is cautioned by the dissenting justices in this matter: "There will be consequences to shutting down the political process on an issue of such profound public significance. Closing debate tends to close minds. People denied a voice are less likely to accept the ruling of a court..."

Sincerely,

Michael Elderson