Louisiana spent a lot of money
defending its Constitution for something overturned by federal judicial fiat.
It was worth it.
Last
month’s decision by the U.S. Supreme Court that protected from prohibition
by states a product of homosexual activity, same sex marriage, ended up costing
the state at
least $330,000 in fees it paid outside counsel for that defense; these dollars
might have been lower in terms of manpower had state attorneys handled the case
that Louisiana’s constitutional ban, approved by over three-quarters of voters
over a decade ago, was within powers granted by the states that should not be
abrogated by including practices not already listed in the Constitution as
protected as in the case of free speech and religious exercise. That figure
probably will end up half again higher when court costs and reimbursement of
the plaintiffs’ legal fees are figured in. Ironically, because Louisiana’s case
presented the best exposition against the plaintiffs’ claims, that probably
increased the costs.
Of course, a half a million dollars
is relative. After all, Louisiana wasted, net, around $170 million in motion
picture investor tax credits in the last year for which there is calculated
data, and probably will waste around $50 million this year in the earned income
tax credit that discourages working to maximal effort. Still, anything is
better for use than having nothing available.
True, the decision was indefensible
on any but the most emotional grounds. Why should the Court grant special
status to this particular manifestation of behavior, deviating from existing
jurisprudence, that now opens the door, at the macro level, to the Court creating
other protected classes rooted in behavioral aspects only on the basis of what
seems popular and, at the micro level, from making any coherent or intellectual
argument preventing polygamous, incestuous, or even (if things keep
going this way) interspecies marriages? Yet the decision is the decision
regardless of its merit, and so, in retrospect, ending up on the losing side
costs money that could have been avoided by laying down on this issue.
But in the very not capitulating to
the trendiness of the moment is where the expenditure pays off. Not in victory,
but in exposition of the willingness to defend what is right, the conceptualization
of American government as one that operates by rules, these found in the
Constitution in a manner unambiguously enough that they illuminate the
violation done to them by this decision. The Constitution tells us that states
have a general police power that includes regulation of marriage, that
regulation of marriage occurs through republican forms of government that
include one or both of democratically-elected policy-makers and/or the people
directly democratically, and that Congress and the states (through the 14th
Amendment) are not specifically prohibited from regulating in a way where government
treats those who practice heterosexuality differently than those who practice
homosexuality, justifiably discriminating in that the state has a vested
interest in encouraging heterosexual relationships as this is the only union
that allows the state to perpetuate the society that allows it to govern.
The decision ignoring these facets wounded
the very essence of the Constitution by violating these parts of it, and in
denying their obvious existence erodes the very foundation, in the micro sense,
of our specific and formal kind of government and, in the macro sense, of the larger
concept of republican rule. Not to stand athwart of this notion that the
Constitution may be disregarded when politically inconvenient and creates unfashionable
outcomes is to collaborate in its degradation. To resist this at least minimizes,
although does not reverse, the damage, for it puts on notice those who so
carelessly jettison this respect for the rule of law, even if they comprise a
Supreme Court majority, that what they do is neither right nor healthy to our
system of government.
Accordingly, it was money very well
spent. The courage to do what is right on a matter of this importance should
make that endeavor priceless.
No comments:
Post a Comment