Senate Testimony on "Judicial Activism"

[lcooksey]

I'm including more than 4 paragraphs because this is not copyrighted. Lawfullywedded.com is a conservative website which is against amending the Constitution to block same-sex marriage. Chuck Muth runs the site.

Go to http://www.lawfullywedded.com/ and click Senate Testimony for the whole thing.


March 3, 2004
226 Dirksen Senate Office Building 10:00 a.m.
Testimony of Chuck Muth

(snip)

If the problem is judicial activism, then let’s have a discussion and debate on how to address judicial activism. To address the perceived problem of judicial activism ONLY on this one hot-button issue is akin to putting a band-aid on a compound fracture. To move forward on the Musgrave amendment as written is to invite, deservedly so in my opinion, the criticism that this is solely a punitive, discriminatory anti-gay measure. And as such, it has no place in the greatest governing document mankind has ever seen.

Sadly, though, this is not the first time a constitutional marriage amendment with such ugly undertones has been proposed. In preparing for my testimony here today, I came across a paper titled Journal of African American Men which describes the objections many had in the early 1900s toward blacks marrying whites. According to this report, Rep. Seaborn Roddenberry, Georgia Democrat, proposed a constitutional amendment banning interracial marriages stating that, “Intermarriage between whites and blacks is repulsive and averse to every sentiment of pure American spirit. It is abhorrent and repugnant. It is subversive to social peace.”

This is not unlike much of the rhetoric you hear from supporters to today’s federal marriage amendment.

Of course, supporters of the current Federal Marriage Amendment will say, “That was way back then. You can’t equate two gay guys getting married to the notion of a black man getting married to a white woman.” However, taking into consideration the passions and context of the times, it’s not much of a stretch to believe that people such as Rep. Roddenberry found the idea of interracial marriage just as unnatural and abhorrent then as many today find the idea of gay marriage.

Today we look at how people such as Rep. Roddenberry felt about interracial marriage a hundred years ago and cannot, in our wildest dreams, imagine such ignorance and bigotry. But if Congress moves forward with this current marriage amendment, I suggest that Americans one hundred years from now will likely look back on this distinguished body with equal amazement, if not disgust.

(snip)

Frankly, some of us are looking at the distinguished body with equal amazement and disgust right now. :) But if some conservatives, as well as 99% of liberals, are this much against the FMA it really does not have a chance in Hades of passing.

[CHestonsucks]

1. Someone explain to me

how upholding principle ALREADY WRITTEN into a state constitution, in this case the Mass. SJC correctly interpreting the language of the state constitution to prohibit dicrimination and require equal protection under the laws of the Commonwealth, can constitute "activism"? Typically "judicial activism" is a coded phrase meant to indicate actions on the part of the judiciary that are somehow NOT consistent with the language under review.

Clearly this is not the case here.