Third, the Court said it should be cautious when asked to rule in an “uncharted area” that lacks “guideposts for responsible decision-making.” Fourth, the Court should be reluctant to redefine marriage in the absence of a close nexus between the right asserted (same-sex marriage) and the constitutional provision (equal protection of the laws). The equal protection clause has never been applied to marriage. Fifth, the Court said it should respect the “earnest and profound debate” in which the states are engaged. It should not short-circuit the democratic process with a ruling that pretends to settle the debate once and for all.
The pro-gay media have tried to make gay marriage seem normal, saying it’s now “allowed in 37 states.” In fact, same-sex marriage was enacted by only 11 state legislatures, and only three of those laws were ratified by popular vote. In the other states – in some cases, by only a single judge. If the judges ignore all their precedents, the other branches of government should use their constitutional powers to check and balance a bad decision.
Listen to the radio commentary here: