Standing ready to vindicate our honored sentiments, along with our system of government, vigilant eyes have shifted westward.

Slightly more than seven years ago, in excess of 4.6 million California voters (61.4%) backed a pre-emptive measure to ban official recognition of gay marriages by voting to adopt Proposition 22, a law which explicitly defined the union of a man and a woman as the only valid or recognizable form of marriage in California.

The new proposition worked to strengthen the state’s earlier one-man, one-woman marriage law with a clearly worded statement of public intent. Its advocates promoted the initiative as addressing a loophole that validated any marriage that was legitimately performed in another state, potentially including same-sex marriages.

Last week, however, with the stroke of a pen, the California Supreme Court swept away decades of morality and tradition by unilaterally changing the age-old understanding of marriage as an institution solely between man and woman. Ignoring judicial restraint and decades of interpretive principles, four justices disenfranchised more than 4.6 million Californians. By utilizing a result-oriented interpretation of jurisprudence and disregarding the will of the people, the court withdrew an important moral, political, and cultural decision from democratic control.

California’s robed masters – the most irresponsible of its public functionaries – decided by a vote of four to three to overturn the state’s ban on same-sex marriage, allowing full marriage rights for homosexual partners. The court also became the first in the nation to declare sexual orientation a protected classification in the same way race or gender is protected. Pursuant to its ruling, any law that purports to discriminate based on sexual orientation will be considered constitutionally suspect and therefore subject to strict judicial scrutiny, a very stringent standard. Barring a last-minute injunction, marriage licenses will be issued to same-sex couples starting on June 14, 2008.

California, a left-leaning state, had already acquiesced to the extreme when it permitted domestic-partner registration, a right similar to civil unions found in other states. But radical elements of the homosexual movement were not appeased, since they will only achieve complacency with the overthrow of an older, sturdier culture of nobility and morality.

Only one other state recognizes the right established by the California court. Almost every other court that has considered the issue has rejected it, along with the federal Congress. Nonetheless, with four tiny votes, the Court improperly usurped legislative authority and deemed the people of California irrational, or perhaps inconsequential, in deciding whether the fundamental definition of marriage should be preserved. A profound change in the public consciousness of two social institutions, marriage and government, was wrongly mandated by judicial fiat. Lord Acton’s famous statement about power corrupting turned out to be correct.

Thomas Jefferson accurately predicted this potential for abuse many years ago. Speaking primarily about the federal judiciary, he warned the republic about judicial tyranny, “To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions is a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so. They have with others the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps.”

Jefferson’s use of the term oligarchy was not misplaced. Properly defined, an oligarchy is a form of government where political power effectively rests with a small elite segment of society. Its ruling elites are not bound by the rule of law, and it is inherently incompatible with our government, a republic under which those in authority act by consent of the governed.

Although the judiciary enjoys a Constitutional role as a check against the potential abuses of majoritarian rule, Jefferson recognized judges with limited accountability should refrain from infringing upon the people’s general right to decide fundamental issues of public policy for themselves. Because he understood the emulous nature of man, he feared the consolidation of power into the hands of a few, especially those with the power of judicial review. “The Constitution is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they please,” argued Jefferson.

Since California does not require a waiting period or a residency requirement for marriage, the ruling does not merely affect our largest and most western neighbor. It has the ability to be transported to other states. As homosexual couples from across the nation hurry to California to be issued marriage licenses, other states must prepare for their return home, as the prospect of litigation is certain.

Radicals will soon demand Mississippi recognize marriages that run counter to our moral sensibilities, cultural integrity and Godly instruction. When they do, we must politely stand strong for the rule of law and defend our communities, ignoring their abstruse requests that we corrupt one of our most sacred traditions.

California’s elites have spawned a rabid jurisprudence of doubt, a beast that must be subdued.



Contact State Sen. Chris McDaniel at 601-359-4090 (senate) or (601)649-8611 (Work) or Email – cmcdaniel@senate.ms.gov