View the Trailer

The Constitution Had Nothing To Do With It

email Email
U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts arrives prior to President Barack Obama's State of the Union speech on Capitol Hill in Washington, January 28, 2014. REUTERS/Larry Downing

The worst part of the Supreme Court’s redefinition of marriage is the failure to connect this decision to the Constitution. Even the reckless ROE  V. WADE case was based on a “right to privacy” supposedly stemming from an “emanation of a penumbra” in our founding document. But marriage isn’t about privacy; it is by definition a public institution, officially sanctioned by the state. The five justices who altered marriage forever did so not because the Constitution demanded it or ever suggested it but because they thought it was a good idea. They thereby impose judgment based on personal whim, with no accountability to a deeply divided public. When unelected officials wield unaccountable power it’s an affront to democratic principle and our representative republic. The Chief Justice got it right in his stinging dissent, inviting gay marriage backers to “celebrate today’s decision.” But then John Roberts added: “But don’t celebrate the Constitution. It had nothing to do with it.”

email Email

Comments (44)

Leave a comment
  1. Jim Bird  •  Jun 28, 2015 at 6:46 am

    So, are you really surprised that rule-of-law no longer has any meaning whatsoever? Abuse-of-power is the new norm. By what authority is this granted in America? None. We are a banana republic now and no one can do one thing about it. Why not? It’s illegal and unconstitutional but no one can do one thing to reinstate civility, why? Unlimited, unilateral power of the regime – entrenched Liberalism spewing its filth – uncontested by the GOP. Why and by what reasoning, by what authority? Fear, complicity, laziness? We are told daily by the GOP leadership it is hopeless, the best we can do is do what they demand we do, comply with them. Fuck the GOP.

    • Vardeman  •  Jun 28, 2015 at 12:51 pm

      Such eloquence.

    • branwell  •  Jun 28, 2015 at 5:00 pm

      My goodness, Jim Bird, calm down! The sky is NOT falling. Gay people getting married to each other is hardly an abuse of power. NOT permitting them to marry is an abuse of power.

      • Nani  •  Jun 30, 2015 at 9:52 pm

        This can all be settled easily. Make it a part of the law that anyone who disagrees with gay marriage can do so WITHOUT penalty. There are plenty of non-religious business that would be happy to provide services, why on earth would anyone want their “big day” be serviced by someone who is being forced to, either by the government or social bullying? And if they should want to try to make an easy buck by suing someone for denying them service, they should be told that people who disagree with their lifestyle also have rights. Will they agree to this compromise? I think we know the answer.

      • Jimbo  •  Jul 22, 2015 at 1:51 pm

        You have the issue completely wrong. Nobody ever said that gay people could not get married. The issue was whether gay “marriages” would be recognized by the state for government purposes and effectively be considered the complete equivalent to heterosexual marriages.

        The whole idea of “marriage equality” is based on a lie. It is based on the lie that gender does not matter in intimate relationships, that gender is not a relevant distinction. I often hear the gay marriage advocates compare opposition to gay marriage to opposition to interracial marriage. Of course, they have that completely wrong. The pro-gay marriage side has more in common with those who opposed interracial marriage. The prohibition of interracial marriages was based on a lie. The lie was that black and white people are so different that they should not be allowed to get married. The truth is that black and white people are almost exactly the same except for the color of their skin. There was no good reason to make a racial distinction in marriage and that distinction was a relatively recent historical creation. There is a good reason to make a distinction between heterosexual and homosexual relationships. Men and women are not interchangeable. The idea that they are completely interchangeable and that gender does not matter in intimate relationships is lie. It ignores truth and reality. Yes, your position is anti-science. So next time you compare opposition to gay marriage to opposition to interracial marriage, remember that your side is making the same type of dishonest arguments that were made to oppose interracial marriages – arguments that ignore the truth does not support your political agenda.

    • Preston hale  •  Jul 3, 2015 at 2:16 am

      Hey Jimbo, here in the Medved realm we try to elevate political conversation to a level beyond petty rants and amateurish provocation.

      Do you think Medved hasn’t experienced every one of your low-level frustrations at some point in his career?

      The difference between him and you (there are many) is he knows meaningful influence involves a bit more strategy than letting loose one’s tongue, and certainly more thought than an imbecilic “F-you.”

  2. Joe Schwartz  •  Jun 28, 2015 at 1:57 pm

    This is an easy issue. This decision brings clarity, consistency and decency to our nation. This is a civil rights issue where no one’s rights are being infringed. It resolves an issue without having to continually define civil unions and domestic partnerships(for those who want to get married).

    • Jimbo  •  Jul 22, 2015 at 1:59 pm

      So I guess polygamists should be the next to get their “civil rights”? What about two bisexual people who want to get married and each needs one of the both genders to be completely fulfilled in marriage? We will have to allow marriage between four people for bi-sexual people (two men and two women for a total of four in the marriage). We can’t deny bi-sexual people their “civil right” to have whatever type of marriage they need to feel fulfilled.

      And by whose standard does this bring decency? It must be a very twisted definition.

      I don’t think you understand the concept of civil rights. If there is a civil right to any type of marriage a person wants, which is essentially the gay marriage position, then marriage can have no standards at all and has to mean whatever anybody wants it to mean. But yeah, go ahead and make some type of arbitrary and ridiculous argument to deny others their “civil right” to whatever kind of marriage they want. I laugh at the silly, irrational arguments for gay “marriage.”

  3. branwell  •  Jun 28, 2015 at 2:06 pm

    I called Michael’s show on Friday and was appalled that he was unaware that OH was permitted to not recognize our marriage made in New York. He thought the 14th amendment took care of that. News alert! It didn’t until Friday! The amount of ignorance on the Right is ming-boggling.

  4. Jim Bird  •  Jun 28, 2015 at 11:31 pm

    Did you listen to Michael’s show on Friday? This has nothing to do with gay marriage. I am pro gay marriage. It’s about abuse of power at every level in the Government now. By-passing congress with every issue unless you vote Obama’s way. It’s intrusion in every aspect of our lives from the food we eat and political correctness to giving the bomb to Iran and exterminating 2000 year old cultures (Coptic Christians) in the Middle East. It’s bankrupting the EU by Obama downgrading the dollar for the first time in our history and fomenting race hatred from the White House when black unemployment has doubled under his regime. Most Americans are pro gay marriage and, by the way, I’m not the slightest bit religious. I have six grandsons who will be getting their draft notices starting in ten years when three of them turn 18 to go fight WWIII because of the occupant in the Oval Office. This is what pisses me off having served during Viet Nam. What angers me most though are the cowards in the GOP who are complicit with the insanity of thinking “oh golly, everything will be ok. Be happy dude.”

    • Branwell  •  Jun 29, 2015 at 6:50 am

      Jim Bird: The issues you raise have NOTHING to do with marriage equality. Michael wanted the democratic process to give us our rights. Tell that to a black person in Alabama in 1954.

      • Jimbo  •  Jul 22, 2015 at 2:05 pm

        It is hilarious that you compare jim crow to the government not recognizing gay marriage. Do you really not see the difference? Are you really unaware of the multiple constitutional amendments relating to race? I have yet to see one regarding gay rights. The amount of ignorance in Branwell is mind-boggling.

    • Randall  •  Jul 3, 2015 at 1:42 am

      Jim Bird – we no longer have a draft. Just to get you up to speed there…

  5. jguy  •  Jun 28, 2015 at 11:37 pm

    It’s like the sixties prophet John Lennon and/or the great Sir Paul penned…. “Nothing
    is real, nothing to get hung about…” Good or bad that is where we seem to be evolving
    or devolving to…

  6. Jim Bird  •  Jun 29, 2015 at 1:02 pm

    Brainwell, ALL rights go out the window when the civil society no longer exists. Focus on the elephant in the house, not the mouse. When a dictatorial wonk makes decisions for the masses at his whim, there is no more civil society. Gay marriage and every other issue is dictated by the latest king in charge, NOT you and me. The Founders could have created a top down governance but they didn’t like the brutality of Euro slavery (feudalism). Instead they founded a country based on the least of us, the individual, who was free to pursue his own happiness by setting up a republic that guaranteed those rights with a system of checks and balances. Obama has made himself immune from the system by abuse of power. So Republicans can elect their thug President to counteract the prior thug. Translation: we’re a Banana Republic now ejudicated by threat, race baiting, you name it. Free people are smarter, nicer, more compassionate, you name it, that ANY politician or hack that comes down the pike. We want to be left alone, so free markets can drive down health costs and increase quality of life and pay for the safety net problems when they occur (not as another bloated money pit like the VA that will never go out of business). Remember when poor people got free healthcare, before SCOTUSCARE?

    • branwell  •  Jun 30, 2015 at 6:51 am

      Jim Bird: That’s a lot to unpack. We’re still the best nation in the world, despite Medved et al trying to drag us back to the 19th century. Civil rights are not subject to referenda. Why is this so hard for you to get?

      • Jim Bird  •  Jun 30, 2015 at 12:07 pm

        Be happy dude, focus on the minutia while Rome burns.

      • Jimbo  •  Jul 22, 2015 at 2:08 pm

        FYI – using the term “civil rights” is not a trump card that lets you win the argument without making your case. There is no “civil right” to whatever form of marriage you want, well at least there wasn’t one until that vacuous gay marriage decision by Anthony (it is all about me) Kennedy.

    • Lee H  •  Jun 30, 2015 at 4:17 pm

      Jim Bird. I hear you and think in parallel with you. I could not give a flip about who marries who. My wife (female) and I have gay friends….big deal. But what really bothers me is a thing called precedent. Now that the Executive branch and the Judicial branch have bypassed the congress we no longer have any say about direction. We ignore the abuse of the core things that are making this country no better then any other country. So now we do not have the constitution as a guiding light for all decisions and that gives us stability. If the progressive socialist want to believe that the constitution is a living document then there is no stability because it will be whipsawed back and forth, changed, re-changed, changed back and from decade to decade we have lost the United States of America. We wont know what we are any longer.

      You may think that Cruz and Trump are radical, but really listen to what they say and what they will defend. Do we want another Obama or Bush or Clinton. If we get this style of politician then hang on because we will have one hell of a ride!

      • Jim Bird  •  Jun 30, 2015 at 7:30 pm

        I could not agree more. It’s amazing to me how many of us there are who are completely fed up with both parties (one primarily crooks and the other cowards). Election cycle after election cycle we hear the same platitudes, promises and a lot of flat out lies. The Democrats march in lock step on every issue NEVER changing their position and literally constantly screaming for compromise. The GOP ALWAYS gives in, gives up because they say “….we will look bad.” With four kids and seven grandkids, I wake up every morning thinking what America will look like when they are my age. Pretty damn scary.

  7. Ed Brown Jr.  •  Jul 2, 2015 at 6:11 pm

    The Constitution is not The applicable document but, rather it is the Declaration Of Independence and THE INALIENABLE RIGHT OF THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS,
    Ed Brown Jr

    • Michael Ogden  •  Jul 2, 2015 at 7:30 pm

      And the pursuit of happiness has become our new morality, ever-changing based on how we as individuals “feel”. As opposed to something more concrete, like, say the Ten Commandments, upon which most of our law is based.

    • Jimbo  •  Jul 22, 2015 at 2:09 pm

      The pursuit of happiness does not mean that the government must endorse what you think will make you happy. Also, I don’t think there has ever been a finding that you are entitled to do whatever you think will make you happy.

  8. Jay  •  Jul 2, 2015 at 6:35 pm

    Not a civil rights issue at all. Gay people are born male or female like the rest of us. What makes them “gay” is their preferred behavior. Racial discrimination didn’t come under protection because of people’s behaviors. No definitive proof, scientific or otherwise that one is born gay. So no, racial and gay “civil rights” are not quite on the same level. Score one for “preferred behaviors”…..Jay

  9. chuck  •  Jul 2, 2015 at 8:57 pm

    Case history constantly reaffirms that when the mother and father are bonded in marriage children born to that marriage are thereby boosted into a higher civilization. The majority believe that. And therein lies the problem. Married persons predominate in law making. They vote themselves more perks but deny those perks to the unmarried. Naturally, this is a put-down to the non-married persons. We are commanded to love our neighbor, no ifs, ands, or buts. Therefore, lets stop cheating our neighbor for starters. Freedom to marry is an oxymoron. Marriage is a bondage for one noble purpose. We need to revise civil governing accordingly.

    • Audrey  •  Jul 6, 2015 at 11:28 am

      Chuck, societal norms, tradition, and laws elevating male-female marriage have nothing to do with trying to put down unmarried or “vote themselves perks.” It has to do with putting emphasis, not on love, but on the importance of bonding men to the women who have their children. It’s putting a huge value on the male-female bond because this one is the one that has kids and these kids need the support of dad much more than they need social programs–statistics and experience bear out the politically incorrent truth that by every measure, children and therefore society do better when mom and dad are married. And please do not say, “Hey, gay people have kids too!” because yes, duh, some will, with great effort and the help of straight people, but most won’t, while hetero couples have children easily and with very little effort. In our new world though, marriage is now defined, not as a solemn vow where duty and obligation are primary but just as “who you love.” Marriage is no longer an institution that protects children but a way for gays to force acceptance and celebration for their way of life. And the fall out will be–fewer marriages overall and marriages of much shorter duration. After all, if marriage is just, as Obama says, “who you love” than why should anyone continue a marriage where you’re not feelin’ it anymore?

      • Tony G  •  Jul 12, 2015 at 10:31 pm

        Well said. +1

  10. Beano  •  Jul 3, 2015 at 12:53 am

    If this is so egregious of them and even an outright LIE then the judged on the Supreme Court must be removed.
    But I know you won’t DARE do that and means they will DARE to what they did, and they did. You 0, they 1 (won, yep).

  11. Jim Bird  •  Jul 3, 2015 at 4:52 pm

    African Americans ( with civil rights legislation passed by Congress) upheld their “right” granted by the constitution that all men are created equal. The Supreme Court ejudicated a “right” to lesbians and gays. There is nothing in the constitution or bill of rights that discusses “marriage” of any type, kind or behavior. NOW THERE IS A “RIGHT” GRANTED TO ONE SMALL GROUP.
    IT DOESN’t MATTER WHAT THE ISSUE IS, THE “RIGHT” IS GIVEN BY 5 TO 9 INDIVIDUALS. Ironically these are appointments and not voted on by the citizenry. The fact that it was given circumvents our founding documents and now means you can marry you children, your dog, etc., and will be taught in schools and on and on. This is “mob rule democracy” which is outside “the republic for which it stands” which is Banana Republic BS that the Left absolutely loves. Anything to agitate with and blame the other side for exactly what the create on a daily basis.

  12. M Walker  •  Jul 4, 2015 at 9:39 am

    Does this mean the rules of Pinocle have changed?

  13. Jim Bird  •  Jul 4, 2015 at 10:44 am

    WHAT DO YOU NOT GET? Most are saying how lovely this is ESPECIALLY when civil unions already confer all “rights of marriage,” if not more, than hetero marriages!
    Now every priest, preacher, rabbi, religious leader who says to a gay couple wanting to get married in their church “no,” because it does not meet the tenants of their religion, will be fined, thrown in jail, excommunicated by the Religion of Big Govt. or whatever the courts say will be the penalties. It’s a multi-trillion dollar industry for the slip-and-fall sleaze bag lawyer industry. The Liberals/Secularists can now check off Freedom of Religion from their list along with Speech (political correctness) which will constantly be ejudicated out of existence in the courts along with every other right that meets the fancy of the Supreme Leader.
    PS – There is one religion that is safe though – Islam. Out of 1.4 billion followers not a single gay or lesbian Muslim exists.
    Happy Independaence Day!

    • Sean Flynn  •  Jul 10, 2015 at 10:23 am

      Catholic priests have already been refusing to remarry divorced individuals without any legal indemnity for a couple of hundred years in the US.

      I don’t see how their (and other clergy) refusal to marry gay/lesbian couples would be any different.

      As long as there are civil marriages for gays/lesbians this won’t be an issue.

  14. Donna Marie Williamson  •  Jul 4, 2015 at 11:43 am

    If everyone whose values or beliefs prevent him from embracing liberal policies like abortion or marriage of anyone but one man and one woman, etc., would speak out against these policies without backing down, continuing to put pressure on our government to recognize that these are not majority held ideals, perhaps we could forge some change. I fear that too many of us only desire to keep the peace and avoid the inevitable verbal or even monetary sanctions. I know that we will one day have to answer for our indifference. We need a strong, convicted, courageous leader to guide us back to the original ideals of our founding fathers. That is my urgent prayer on this anniversary of our freedom from tyranny…that our beautiful country be delivered from the tyranny of liberalism.

    • Sean Flynn  •  Jul 8, 2015 at 9:41 am

      Barry Goldwater used to be considered the most right-wing, extreme conservative politician in the US. He favored legal abortion (none of his business, he would say) and had no qualms with gays/lesbians (marriage wasn’t an issue back then). Today, Barry Goldwater could never run as a republican. The party has become so extreme and dominated by religious fundamentalists that the libertarian wing of the party and the national security wing of the party (2 of Ronald Reagan’s 3 famous factions) are being forced out. Not wanted.

  15. Karen  •  Jul 5, 2015 at 2:08 am

    Impeach the Supreme Court judges who won’t use the constitution to decide cases!

  16. Gregg P. Frasco  •  Jul 6, 2015 at 5:25 am

    There was only one genuine legal issue in the same-sex marriage case. Namely, when the 14th Amendment was written in 1868, did the authors of that Amendment intend to force same-sex marriage on all the States? Obviously, the answer to this question is “no.” Therefore, the actions of the Supreme Court consitute a blatant violation of the Constitution.

    When the Supreme Court blatantly violates the Constitution, governors of individual States not only have the right, but the **legal obligation* to defy the Supreme Court. This is because governors do not take an oath to uphold the Supreme Court — they take an oath to uphold the Constitution. Therefore, if governors enforce an unconstitutional decision by the Supreme Court, then governors would violate their own oaths of office.

    Of course, if governors defy the Supreme Court, a certain amount of chaos would result. Nonetheless, as noted above, governors’ oath of office require them to defy the Supreme Court.

    If governors had defied the Supreme Court when the school prayer decisions were made in the early 1960s, then we might never have “progressed” to Roe v. Wade. If governors had defied the Supreme Court when Roe v. Wade was decided in the early 1970s, then we might never have “progressed” to the current marriage case. Chillingly, if governors acquiece in the current marriage decision by the Supreme Court, then we can certainly expect more unconstitutional decisions in the future, e.g., polygamy and other forms of multiple-partner marriages, and persecution of Christians.

    • Jim Bird  •  Jul 6, 2015 at 11:55 pm

      Well stated. Is it not amazing how the citizenry can clearly state the constitutionality of an issue, explaining precisely what it’s effects will be, but certain Supreme Court Justices, most politicians, millennials and a President cannot?

      • Jim Bird  •  Jul 6, 2015 at 11:56 pm

        Make that “un”constitutionality.

    • mark scott  •  Jul 9, 2015 at 3:32 pm

      I’d like to see what would happen if a state, or city used the same in your face, we are not going to abide by the Federal Government law,( which I assume it now is because of the Supreme Court decision,) concerning marriage, that these sanctuary cities use to justify not following Federal Law concerning criminal illegals. I wish they would give it a try, and then it would open up a debate this country needs to have, both on states rights and federal government vs state government. Right now it is pick and choose because we have a President that not only will defy law, but executive action around it when he wants. Wouldn’t it be nice to have a President take office and to executive action a right of any state or city to ignore the court and not do same sex marriages if they don’t want to. I’d love to watch the left go ape over that. We need some on our side with some guts to take this government overreach on. I’m tired of weak cowards in the Republican Party who won’t take a stand by not just saying something, but doing something.

      • Gary Stone  •  Jul 12, 2015 at 12:06 am

        There are cities that already spit in the face of Federal Government law. Have you ever heard of Sanctuary Cities? Because that’s a liberal position, the fed will never go against a Sanctuary City. But have just one Governor or city mayor try to go against this SCOTUS decision…watch the sparks fly!

  17. mark scott  •  Jul 9, 2015 at 3:21 pm

    I guess this once again just proves a major flaw in our constitutional system. That being, judges appointed by politicians have now become more politicians and lawmakers than appliers of the constitution to legislation and law. And one of the worst aspects of the Supreme Court being the FINAL ARBRITRATOR is that it can all come down to ONE persons personal belief. Look at how many 5/4 rulings have literally changed the course of American life. Is that really how our democracy is supposed to work? We the citizens elect 535 members to congress with elections every 2 years, and we elect a new President every 4 years. That is the true representation of democracy and the opinion of the people. Yet, ONE single judge on the Supreme Court, can impose his/her will with their single opinion. Somehow this doesn’t seem to me the way it was supposed to be. If so, I’d like to get in the Delorean and take a trip back to June of 1778 and plead for some changes before ratifying the constitution.

    • Sean Flynn  •  Jul 10, 2015 at 10:31 am

      Well if you went back to 1778 there wasn’t much talk of the constitution, because the Revolutionary War was in full swing. A decade later would be the time.

      But aside from that minor point, US democracy has always had many flaws, including the supremacy of the, well, Supreme Court. How many people have pointed out SC decisions over the years which they’ve been appalled with (Dred Scott, Brown v Board of Education, Plessy Fergason, Roe v Wade) and lamented over the power of the court? Its nothing new.

      The founding fathers believed that lifetime appointments would place the SC above politics, unlike representatives, senators and presidents who have to appeal to the voters for continued employment.

      Making SC justices subject to elections, as Ted Cruz has proposed, would really just make them into another wing of Congress.

      You might was well follow Bobby Jindal’s advice and do away with the SC altogether.

      Trust me, there will be future decisions that go the way of the political right, and then the political left will fume and ponder why the SC exists as is does (Gore v Bush 2000, anyone?)

  18. Jim Bird  •  Sep 4, 2015 at 11:04 pm

    Well, that only took a month and a couple of days to imprison a radicalized Christian fascist for thinking there was still freedom of religion in America. Let’s round up the other few million who have the same beliefs. Screw the one-year sentence, let’s do ten years! I wonder if Putin has room in his Siberian gulags. Great job Barach! It’s Mt. Rushmore for you ole buddy!

Tell Us What You Think

All fields required. The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. By using this website you agree to accept our Terms of Use.

Medhead - Michael Medved's Premium Content

Login Join
Advertise with us Advertisement

Follow Michael

Subscribe to our Newsletter

Get Medved weekly movie reviews, columns, and special offers delivered to your inbox.


The Michael Medved Show - Mobile App

Download from App Store Get it on Google play
Michael Medved's History Store Also available on TuneIn