now we hear outcries about "unelected" judges who are "legislating" decisions contrary to "nature and nature's god.". at the same time complaints are heard that the plurality of citizens who favor marriage equality have influenced the five justices who formed the court majority to decide, not according to the constitution, but rather, based on popular opinion. is there any reason appointed judges would be more susceptible to the vagaries of prevailing mores than elected judges would? it would seem that judges who depend on the votes of the populace are more likely to cater to the will of the people even if that will circumvented the clear language of the constitution.
the balance of power between the three branches of the federal government in the usa is dependent on an independent judiciary that is answerable only to posterity and preservation of law based on constitutional principles. the federal courts, especially the supreme court, are the protectors of minorities from the tyranny of the majority. popularly elected legislators may pass laws that trample on the rights of the under-represented, but the courts have the obligation to prevent such laws from taking effect. this is what has happened in the case of the marriage equality ruling. those who long have been denied the right of marriage, with its many legal benefits, on the basis of religious teaching and tradition, now are treated equally before the law, thanks to the decision of a majority of the supreme court.
may those who disagree with marriage equality on the basis of religious belief accept this ruling, which cannot force them to abandon such beliefs. may all see that in a secularly governed state religious belief cannot be used to deny some the rights that others enjoy because of the accident of birth which determined their gender. shalom.