Multiple recent court rulings have thrown the concept of self-determination on its head. You remember self-determination, right? That was what we had before we had judicial tyranny.

Thomas Jefferson summed up self-determination in the Declaration of Independence, writing succinctly that “Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed...”

Those are two incredibly powerful phrases — “just powers” and “consent of the governed” — but sadly, neither of those can exist when the people are denied the opportunity to shape through legislation the nature of the society they live in, nor to protect the traditions on which that society was founded. 

You can easily build a case that the United States no longer has the consent of the governed using as an example the timely but blistering issue of gay marriage. Multiple other issues would illustrate the same principle just as well, but this has been in the news, so let’s stick with it, no matter how controversial. 

For the sake of this argument, it doesn’t matter whether you approve of gay marriage or not — the question for American citizens instead should be whether you approve of self-determination, because clearly the “consent of the governed” has been missing in all these court rulings. 

A majority of states — 31 — have state constitutional amendments banning legal recognition of same-sex unions, yet one after another these bans approved by the people or their representatives have been cast aside by federal courts.

These courts, in essence, have ruled that the people no longer have the right to structure their society according to the dictates of their conscience and beliefs, but rather must succumb to the preferences of various judges who individually are prepared to overturn the mandate of the millions. This would have been called tyranny in the day of Thomas Jefferson, but today it is called progress.

Let me stress once again that this argument in favor of self-determination has nothing to do with the propriety of gay marriage. If indeed, the majority of people in a society conclude that gay marriage is an entirely appropriate institution for that society to sanction, then so be it. As a former student of anthropology, I am well aware of the many forms of marriage that exist or have existed on the globe since time immemorial, and I see no reason for one society to impose its beliefs on another society.

But I also see no reason for one judge to impose his or her beliefs on society either. If a people cannot write their own constitution, then where exactly do the “just powers” come from — and where did the “consent of the governed” go? When you take out the emotional froth of achieving victory by any means that clearly stirs the gay marriage proponents, I do not see how anyone could reasonably surmise that cultural revolutions imposed by a minority upon a majority have any chance of long-term success. 

Finally, I do not understand how the arguments used by courts to order states to allow gay marriage cannot be applied to every other possible form of marriage. If “equal protection” of law truly makes it illegal for the state to mandate that marriage is between one man and one woman, then it should be illegal for the state to mandate any preference regarding what is appropriate for a marriage covenant. 

Having been an avid fan of Robert Heinlein’s prophetic science fiction for many years, I am already familiar with the nature of the polyamorous marriage definition that the courts clearly envision for us, but don’t acknowledge. Read Heinlein’s novel “Time Enough for Love” for more details. 

Unlimited marriage is not my cup of tea, but if this is what America wants to become, it should do so through legislation and not through judicial fiat. One of the great things about legislation is that it not only can be passed, but also later repealed if it doesn’t work out. How often have you heard of judicial precedent being repealed?

If courts insist on imposing a progressive agenda on a conservative people, then they deserve the result they get. If you need a contemporary example of an effort to shape a society against its will, you need look no further than the great experiment in democratization in Iraq. How’s that working out for you? 

If that doesn’t satisfy you, consult with the Ceausescus, the late Mr. and Mrs., about how the people of Romania felt about living under the communist dictates of the Great Leader. The lesson has always been the same down through history. Don’t mess with the people, because the more you oppress them, the messier it gets.