Attack Update: Feb. 10, 2006The attack: “Today the institution of marriage is under attack. The majority of Americans believe that marriage is between a man and a woman. … But a small minority of activist judges disagrees. They think they know better. A recent case in Nebraska comes to mind. After voters overwhelmingly passed a state constitutional amendment to define marriage as being between a man and a woman, an activist federal judge stepped in to strike it down. As if to say to the people, ‘I know what’s best for America, not you.’ When the whims of a few activist judges are free to override the commonsense of the American people, we need to act.” Significance: Frist’s most recent contribution to the ongoing effort to equate protecting gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender rights with “activism” ignores and in fact rejects the important role judges play in our constitutional democracy in enforcing constitutional rights, including constitutional rights for GLBT Americans. Frist’s view is that if a majority of Americans believe something is right, then judges are powerless to act. Does this mean a majority of Americans could reject interracial marriage? What if a majority of Americans wanted to intern Muslim Americans in detention centers? Judges who enforce constitutional rights, even when a majority feels differently, are doing their duty and are making sure our constitutional democracy works.
|
||
