Published December 11, 2004, on WorldNetDaily.com
Many words in the English language can be used to describe the Supreme Court of Canada’s ruling on Thursday condoning homosexual marriage. Asinine immediately comes to mind, followed closely by perfunctory. Or, for those down-to-earth folks who still think eating dinner with their kids each night doesn’t make the family a clan of religious extremists, just plain ignorant. Personally, one phrase popped into my head the moment I caught wind of the Canadian court’s ruling – thank God none of those justices are on the U.S. Supreme Court.
Then again, I think some of them are.
The top court’s decision was unanimous, giving its stamp of approval to efforts by the Canadian government to alter the definition of marriage to include same-sex unions. While the ruling isn’t legally binding, it’s projected to help propel legislation legalizing homosexual nuptials through Parliament. Canada being the great bastion of liberalism that it is, the ruling was more of a formality than anything else – same-sex marriage was already expected to become legal there, court ruling or no.
But while the Canadian top court’s opinion has no legal impact, it’s still quite telling of where the judiciaries of the world – including our own – are heading. Reading through the court’s opinion, one could not help but wonder if the nine justices have been taking pointers from our very own Justice Sandra Day O’Connor. Or perhaps it’s the other way around. Whatever the case, it’s obvious that the Canadian court, and others sharing its philosophy, is operating on two core principles.
Allow me to illustrate.
In the Canadian court’s written opinion, the nine justices paint a fascinating picture of so-called “evolving” culture. Since Canada has attained the nirvana stage of existence shared only by France and a very small comet that travels through Orion’s Belt every December, it is apparently no longer obligated to be a society where marriage is a religious, traditional institution established by a Higher Being. “Canada is a pluralistic society,” the high court writes, and as such, “Marriage, from the perspective of the state, is a civil institution.”
Core principle No. 1: Government, especially the judiciary, has the final say in all matters, including marriage. The antiquarian idea of a Higher Authority (dare I mention that terrible G-word again?) responsible for institutions like marriage will no longer do. Everything is man-made and therefore open to man’s interpretation. Government is the unquestionable, supreme authority. It alone defines what marriage is and what it isn’t.
The Canadian court hurriedly moves on to illustrate core principle No. 2: All laws are open to interpretation. The antiquated laws of the past (meaning marriage between heterosexuals), the court writes, run “contrary to one of the most fundamental principles of Canadian constitutional interpretation: that our Constitution is a living tree which, by way of progressive interpretation, accommodates and addresses the realities of modern life.”
Does that verbiage strike a chord? It should. Several notable members of our own Supreme Court have used similar language. The Atlanta-Journal Constitution quoted Justice O’Connor, for one, last summer as saying that to make an “all important good impression” in the international community, the U.S. Constitution must essentially be a living, breathing document.
First a “living” constitution, now a “living tree” constitution: Are these two Supreme Courts using plays from the same book, or have tree-hugging environmentalists had a greater impact than first thought? I suspect the former.
But the playbook is rotten. A “living tree” constitution, as so ridiculously defined by the nine justices of the Supreme Court of Canada, is really nothing more than an excuse for breaking down the traditions of Western culture and democracy. By giving justices and judges, rather than the people themselves, final say over social change, the judiciary is setting itself up as a tyrannical beast. And all in the name of favoring justice for all through a “living tree” constitution.
Constitutions are established to form the backbone of a nation’s law, not a judiciary’s law. It is the legal heartbeat of the people. The American framers designed our own document in such a way as to reflect societal change by giving the people the option of approving amendments. But modern judiciaries, with the “living tree” view of a constitution, despise amendments. They want to take the traditional meaning of laws already written and twist them into meaning something entirely different from their original purpose.
Those are precisely the principles the Supreme Court of Canada is working from. And while some conservatives might shrug it off as those Canadian whackos going out on a limb again, look out – the same philosophy is deeply entrenched among some on our own Supreme Court.
Let there be no mistake about it. Unless the newly coined “living tree” constitution is given a good dose of herbicide, it’s going to be growing for a long time.