- WND - http://www.wnd.com -

Black robes 'delegitimize' Supreme Court

Supreme Court justices today “delegitimized” the highest bench in the nation by their rulings on two controversial marriage cases, according to a key critic who is explaining now that the issue is not settled, nor is the fight over.

The high court today said the Defense of Marriage Act was unconstitutional because it treats homosexual duos differently from married heterosexuals. And the judges refused to address the fight over Proposition 8, a constitutional amendment through which voters in California defined marriage as being between one man and one woman, because of their technical interpretation of “standing.”

“Today, the United States Supreme Court has lost its legitimacy as an arbiter of the Constitution and the rule of law,” said Mat Staver, chairman of Liberty Counsel. “Today is the death of the court’s legacy, because the decision in the federal Defense of Marriage Act case defies logic and is a pure invention of a handful of justices.”

Analysts say the rulings today did not create a constitutional “right” to homosexual marriage, but inflicted great damage on America by mainstreaming what for millennia has been considered by society a perversion of the marriage standard set by the Bible.

WND reported earlier that even before the court opinions, Staver was one part of a massive coalition of Christian organizations and faith traditions that simply told the court members they don’t have it within their power to redefine marriage.

The coalition released a statement that left no doubt about the intention of its members.

“Make no mistake about our resolve. While there are many things we can endure, redefining marriage is so fundamental to the natural order and the true common good that this is the line we must draw and one we cannot and will not cross,” said the coalition of Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant clergy and leaders.

Staver pointed out that the “delegitimization” idea comes not from him, but from former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, known for her left-leaning and progressive ideas.

In 1992, in the case of Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Penn. v. Casey, O’Connor rwrote, “The root of American governmental power is revealed most clearly in the instance of the power conferred by the Constitution upon the judiciary of the United States and specifically upon this court. As Americans of each succeeding generation are rightly told, the court cannot buy support for its decisions by spending money and, except to a minor degree, it cannot independently coerce obedience to its decrees. The court’s power lies, rather, in its legitimacy, a product of substance and perception that shows itself in the people’s acceptance of the judiciary as fit to determine what the nation’s law means and to declare what it demands.

“The underlying substance of this legitimacy is of course the warrant for the court’s decisions in the Constitution and the lesser sources of legal principle on which the court draws,” O’Connor continued. “The court must take care to speak and act in ways that allow people to accept its decisions on the terms the court claims for them, as grounded truly in principle, not as compromises with social and political pressures having, as such, no bearing on the principled choices that the Court is obliged to make. Thus, the court’s legitimacy depends on making legally principled decisions under circumstances in which their principled character is sufficiently plausible to be accepted by the nation.”

“Marriage predates government and civil authorities,” explained Staver. “No civil authority, including the Supreme Court, has the authority to redefine marriage. Marriage was not created by religion or government and is ontologically a union of one man and one woman. For any court or civil authority to think it has the authority to redefine marriage is the height of hubris.”

He continued, “Deconstructing marriage will hurt children and society. While today’s decision on DOMA did not redefine marriage, it has provided the foundation on which to do so. Today’s decision is the equivalent of the 1972 contraception decision involving unmarried couples and the so-called right to privacy on which the 1973 abortion decision in Roe v. Wade was constructed. Today, the Supreme Court has damaged its image, lost legitimacy, and set in motion considerable harm to society and to the state of the union.”

Members of the marriage solidarity statement rallied behind the document drafted by Deacon Keith Fournier, editor of Catholic Online, and chairman of Common Good Alliance, as well as Staver.

While they candidly admit they have differences on matters of doctrine and religious practice, they proclaimed solidarity on the issue of marriage.

“Redefining the very institution of marriage is improper and outside the authority of the state,” it says. “The Supreme Court has no authority to redefine marriage.”

The statement continues, “We pledge to stand together to defend marriage as what it is, a bond between one man and one woman, intended for life, and open to the gift of children.”

“The institutions of civil government should defend marriage and not seek to undermine it,” the statement continues. “Government has long regulated marriage for the true common good. Examples, such as the age of consent, demonstrate such a proper regulation to ensure the free and voluntary basis of the marriage bond. Redefining the very institution of marriage is improper and outside the authority of the state.

“As Christian citizens united together, we will not stand by while the destruction of the institution of marriage unfolds in this nation we love. The Sacred Scriptures and unbroken teaching of the church confirm that marriage is between one man and one woman.

“Religious freedom is the first freedom in the American experiment for good reason.”

Staver’s concern was just a small drop in the flood of negative reaction directed toward the activist court after its marriage decisions: