The Judiciary as Impediment to Compromise
A recent editorial from National Review highlights one of the procedural detriments that has been advanced in conjunction with the cause of a progressive marriage regime:
… Connecticut, at least, decided the matter democratically. Those people who objected could try to persuade their fellow citizens to repeal the law.
Now Connecticut’s supreme court has decided that marriage in all but name is not good enough, and imposed same-sex marriage on the state. Like other courts, the Connecticut court treated the legislature’s attempt to meet gay activists halfway as a reason to throw out the compromise and hand the activists a victory. If the legislature was willing to recognize same-sex unions as though they were marriages, the court reasoned, why not call them marriages too? Opponents of same-sex “marriage” should be warned: Thanks to the courts, compromise is now folly.
As a strategy, “by any means necessary” embeds a belief in the justificatory power of the ends. Me, I worry that the result will be to end more crucial beliefs and practices than our society can afford to lose.