Sincere: Ruling created no new rights

With a Feb. 7 ruling by a panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals that California's Proposition 8 violates the U.S. Constitution, we once again hear complaints rising about the illegitimacy of "judge-made law" or "judge-created rights."

Proposition 8 was the voter-initiated state constitutional amendment that prohibited same-sex marriage in California, in reaction to an earlier state Supreme Court decision that had invalidated statutory prohibitions on gay marriage. (Some 18,000 gay and lesbian Californians were married during the window opened by the state's high court before the voters closed it.)

Some opponents of same-sex marriage assert that the Founders, in drawing up the Constitution, did not intend its protections to include gay individuals who wish to marry each other.

Since the 14th Amendment is usually cited by those who believe the Constitution does, in fact, protect a right to same-sex marriage ("nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws"), opponents of gay marriage argue that the post-Civil War amendments were intended only to extend constitutional protections on the basis of race and that their authors would not have also extended those protections on the basis of sexual orientation.

To be fair, there are also people who favor extending equal marriage rights to all citizens but who argue that this should be done legislatively, because, they say, courts should not be creating new rights not present in the language of the Constitution or the minds of its authors.

Since the "new rights" meme is so common, it may be useful to consult a different analogy (unrelated to race) to reveal why this objection is logically flawed.

The argument of the opponents of same-sex marriage is that it is an entirely new concept and therefore courts should not extend the right of marriage to gay people.

Yet "marriage" is not a new concept, and it may be engaged in legally by most, but not all, people who desire opposite-sex marriages.

In every state except Mississippi and Nebraska, any adult from the age of 18 may wed another person without parental permission. (In Mississippi, the legal age to freely marry is 21; in Nebraska, it is 19.) In many of the states, the marriageable age was once 21 but has been changed to 18.

In all these states, the legal age of majority is 18 — people who have reached that age can enter into contracts, buy and sell goods and services, own a home, join the military, pay taxes, vote in elections and — in some cases — serve in elective public office, including the state legislature.

If someone in Mississippi sued for the right to marry at the age of 18 or 19, it would not be unreasonable for a court to rule that the current prohibition on marriage there before the age of 21 is unconstitutional, because it deprives that person of a liberty (to marry) guaranteed by the 14th Amendment.

Nobody would argue that that court was creating a "new," previously non-existent right. It would simply be expanding the pool of otherwise eligible adult citizens who can enjoy that right.

That is because, for virtually every other person in the country older than 18 years of age, marriage is legal and available to them.

The point is that judges who recognize the right of gay couples to marry are not creating a "new right." Rather, they are extending a right that is already recognized for all other adults.

"Marriage" is legal for all adults, except those who are gay or lesbian. To recognize that being gay or lesbian is no impediment to marriage is no more creating a "new right" than to say that 18-year-old adult citizens of Mississippi should be able to marry today rather than wait three years.

There may be compelling arguments, on policy grounds, to continue to prohibit gay marriage. Seven states, the District of Columbia, Canada, several European countries, and South Africa (among other governments) have rejected those arguments, if they exist.

But one argument that does not stand up to scrutiny is that same-sex marriage is a "judge-created right."