June 30, 2015 3 Comments
The Constitution promises liberty to all within its reach, a liberty that includes certain specific rights that allow persons, within a lawful realm, to define and express their identity. The petitioners in these cases seek to find that liberty by marrying someone of the same sex and having their marriages deemed lawful on the same terms and conditions as marriages between persons of the opposite sex.
In the analysis section, he says this:
The nature of injustice is that we may not always see it in our own times. The generations that wrote and ratified the Bill of Rights and the Fourteenth Amendment did not presume to know the extent of freedom in all of its dimensions, and so they entrusted to future generations a charter protecting the right of all persons to enjoy liberty as we learn its meaning. When new insight reveals discord between the Constitution’s central protections and a received legal stricture, a claim to liberty must be addressed.
Those two statements are consistent with each other and with the school of thought that can find new rights (or make them up out of the whole cloth) in a two hundred year old document, whose authors meant no such thing, if (and that’s very doubtful) they even thought of such things. That school is what is often called ‘the living constitution’. And it is fully capable of finding rights that don’t exist and were never intended.
Yesterday, No Mans Land published on All along the Watchtower, an excellent history of marriage in Christianity. But that, while interesting, has little to do with the court ruling, because like Roe v. Wade, the court simply decided what it wanted without recourse to the law. I probably should add that while I’ve always thought Marbury v. Madison was right, I’m beginning to doubt my conclusion.
Because the real problem isn’t with any of that, the real problem is the conception of the law. What Kennedy works from is the old Roman conception of the law that flows strongly in European law. It holds that one can do anything that the law permits. It leads to many laws, and a fair percentage of them perverse, and is imposed from the top down, like these SCOTUS opinions.
But American law, like English law, is based on the Common Law, and law that has built up over time, using precedents. We spoke the other day of the start of the written Common Law, in the days of King Æthelberht of Kent. Contemporary with St. Augustine of Canterbury, King Æthelberht’s Law was the first written version of the Common Law, indeed the first written law code in any of the Germanic languages. This was the basis of King Alfred the Great’s Code, and all subsequent English/American law, including Magna Charta.
The key takeaway here is that Anglo-American law is based on a different principle, that one can do anything that the law does not forbid. That difference is fundamental. That is also the basis of the Ten Commandments. That is an entire law code, in ten simple “Thou shalt not’s. More on that in an earlier post of mine, here, and Jessica postulated that Jesus boiled it down even more here.
And so we see that there is a fundamental flaw in these decrees from SCOTUS, the court simply chooses to violate the fundamental basis of our law to grant non-existant rights.
More to come on this, of course.