Same-Sex Marriage, the Political Process and Judicial Manipulation

There is a new meme circulating among journalists about the Supreme Court’s decision not to take certiorari in the same sex-marriage cases. According to the left-liberal Jeffrey Toobin, the Court’s decisions allow the “political process to go forward, one state at a time.” Or as David Brooks, a moderate conservative, said at greater length: “Sometimes, you just let the country have its way, and you don’t try to determine the shape of the country. You sort of modestly step back and let the country figure out what it believes. And I think they’re doing absolutely the right thing in just withdrawing and not getting too involved.”

Whatever one thinks of same-sex marriage (and I favor it as a policy matter), these claims completely distort the truth. The Supreme Court is letting go forward a judicial process that permits courts to invalidate traditional marriage laws if they think such a decision would best reflect the signals the Court itself has previously sent on the subject.  In contrast,  a political process would allow states—principally their legislatures and people—to make decisions about same-sex marriage, one state at a time.

The journalists’ claims are even more disingenuous because of the way the Supreme Court has set the stage for the lower courts. Justice Kennedy’s opinion in United States v. Windsor had a strategic ambiguity as a matter of doctrine: whether its holding on the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) was based on federalism or substantive rights was unclear. But the opinion did convey the clear implication that the decision to have a single federal rule on the issue was driven by animus against homosexuals.  The Court gave no serious consideration to the possibility that citizens and legislators were primarily influenced by the historic nature of marriage over thousands of years. Thus, the opinion was written in way that made it difficult for lower court judges to uphold traditional marriage distinctions without fear of being accused of bigotry.

The Court in fact reached out to displace the political process by reaching out to decide the Windsor case. There was no reason to reach the merits of the constitutionality of DOMA because there was no live controversy, given that the Obama administration was conceding all the relief Windsor required. Consequently, far from exercising “the passive virtues,” the Court has manipulated its own jurisdiction to send signals to the lower court to provide momentum for a decision on the constitutionality of same-sex marriage.

This performance constitutes judicial stage management—the opposite of permitting the political process to play out.   Undoubtedly the Court has been shrewder than it was in Roe v. Wade in avoiding backlash. But that is a different matter. Indeed, creating a judicial façade that encourages commentators to say the Court is permitting a space for politics is – in the long run – more dangerous to democratic self-rule than a more straightforward admission by the Justices that they are making the political decisions for themselves.

Reader Discussion

Law & Liberty welcomes civil and lively discussion of its articles. Abusive comments will not be tolerated. We reserve the right to delete comments - or ban users - without notification or explanation.

on October 21, 2014 at 18:17:04 pm

So why give any credence to anything that Toobin has to say?
Does anyone expect anything different from the likes of the Toobins of the world and their on-going apologia for the Court's support of gay marriage and destruction of our federal structure.
Let the CITIZENS of each state make whatever determination they desire - not the Toobins' nor the Black Robes of each state.

read full comment
Image of gabe
on October 22, 2014 at 04:16:44 am

At this point, what basis is there for referring to David Brooks as a "moderate conservative"? Wouldn't it be closer to the truth to call him a "moderate leftist"?

read full comment
Image of djf
on October 22, 2014 at 10:47:49 am

What do you think of Brown v. Bd of Education? The Chief Justice postponed issuing a decision and asked for re-argument, putatively not to develop new issues, but to provide time to persuade all members of the court to sign onto the majority, and to get the decision issued after the presidential elections.

Both considerations are patently political. And arguably wise. Yet this suggests that the Court is – and has long been -- a conscious political actor.

read full comment
Image of nobody.really
on October 22, 2014 at 11:26:44 am

1) Are you then saying that the Court *should* be political? or only that they sometimes act that way.
2) As for Brown v... would it not be fair to say that the Court was simply being *prudential*, knowing as the Chief did that they had a majority, and that the decision was of such a magnitude and that its reception could be disruptive, that it would be better received if the Court demonstrated unanimity?
Prudential or political?

read full comment
Image of gabe
on October 22, 2014 at 19:36:27 pm


"Whatever one thinks of same-sex marriage (and I favor it as a policy matter)" . . . one has to ponder exactly what do you or would anyone mean by "as a policy matter" in discussing a time proven, across all civilizations institution like marriage? First of all, the terminology same-sex marriage is unacceptable, and should be seen for what it is, surreal marriage. Second, marriage is not a policy matter; it either is or isn't marriage. A rose by any other name is a rose. Thus, a weed is not a rose. Surreal marriage is not a rose but the weed far too many wrongfully accept is a rose.

Policy or not, we as a nation, a world, either understand and support true marriage or distort it. The gay rights movement and its supporters have created a distortion, a fallacy. To concede to that distortion is like calling a Salvador Dali a Michelangelo.

In Windsor the Supreme Court put on its rose colored glasses. To presume bigotry if one opposes surreal marriage, that is would support DOMA, be it the federal government or the individual person, is a false assumption on the Court's or anyone's part because the concept of surreal marriage is a falsehood no matter what the courts, policy makers, gays or the world may believe.

"[A]rguably wise" Mr. nobody? No, surreal marriage is nothing less than otherwise.

read full comment
Image of EJW

Law & Liberty welcomes civil and lively discussion of its articles. Abusive comments will not be tolerated. We reserve the right to delete comments - or ban users - without notification or explanation.