They’ve got opinions

It isn’t the least bit astonishing that the Seattle Times printed Letters to the Editor on the decision by the Supreme Court of Washington to uphold the State’s Defense of Marriage Act.

Nor is it at all astonishing that every one of the letters they printed yesterday were from people who didn’t like the court’s decision, as you can see here.

Today however, the Times finally decided to show both sides of the argument, by printing two letters from each. How kind of them.

I often go through the Letters to the Editor section to show you the absurdity in this town, but today I would like to show you a Letter that made me say “Damn, I wish I’d written that”.

Editor, The Times:

I am perplexed by The Times’ discontent with the state Supreme Court’s decision. The courts do not exist to save us from ourselves or to fix legislative results. They are not the great diviners and solvers of every social issue. They are by constitutional definition conservative bodies. They should carefully guard against substituting their own preferences for the law and the Constitution.

In this case, the state Supreme Court lived up to its mandate.

In fact, the Washington state Supreme Court did the citizens a great favor. By declining to wave a magic wand over the word “marriage” and redefine it to mean something that it has never meant throughout all of recorded human history, the justices have provided the opportunity for the legislative process to work as it was intended.

Wholesale redefining of terms cheapens the currency of language and distorts debate. Any expansion or redefinition of marriage is serious business properly left to legislation or perhaps the constitutional-amendment process.

When courts intrude into the legislative sphere in complex, highly charged issues where the legislative history is clear and Constitution silent, they create controversy and conflict that go on for generations. This is perhaps the greatest lesson to be learned from Roe v. Wade.

There will be some kind of legal resolution to the issue of gay relationships. I think a fully debated, legislative solution offers the best hope of something all citizens can live with going into the future. The legislators will not have a court decision to hide behind. The wisdom of everyday people will become part of the final equation through open public debate.

This is something to cheer about.

Frank Klapach, Port Orchard

In a couple weeks time, the Analog Wife and I will be travelling to the Port Orchard area to look into the prospect of purchasing our next residence there. I will certainly feel in better company if more Constitution-minded folks like Mr. Klapach live there.