My Point of View by Brian Hensley

The Supreme Court caught the national attention this past week. Two key decisions were released. Both are very important, but one got all the headlines.

The first, King v. Burwell, dealt with a phrase in the health care laws that declares subsidies were only available to people buying insurance on “an exchange established by the states.” Thirty-six states chose not to establish exchanges, many because they opposed the law. Minnesota set up MNsure, on part to allow citizens to take part in the subsidy. Many of these state-run exchanges have had tremendous cost overruns, been extremely ineffective and received horrid customer satisfaction reports.

Federal exchanges were established for many states that did not set up exchanges, and the law was perfectly clear that tax credits were only for those buying insurance “established by the states.” The Supreme Court’s decision essentially drafted its own language on the law, and changed the law. Going back to my eighth grade civic lesson, Mr. Wagner was always very clear about who made the law, and it was not the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court does not have that authority. Words matter. Words are used by lawmakers for reasons, and if the Supreme Court can add or delete words when the language is clear that concerns me immensely. Lawmakers argue, debate, amend and draft language that is very specific for a reason.

The second case, Obergefell v. Hodges, involved a decision whether one state must recognize the laws of another state. However, the issue wasn’t some obscure inter-commerce issue; it was a hot political issue involving whether a state must recognize same-sex marriage from another state. The court ruled 5-4 that all states must recognize same-sex marriages previously issued by another state and allow same-sex marriages in their own state, even in the 13 states that have voted or passed their own state constitutional amendments against same-sex marriages.

In the dissent opinion by Chief Justice Roberts, he shared, “This court is not a Legislature. Whether same-sex marriage is a good idea should be of no concern to us (the Supreme Court). Under the Constitution, judges have power to say what the law is, not what it should be.” As for the state’s role, he said: “The fundamental right to marry does not include a right to make a state change its definition of marriage.”

The United States political opinion has moved very quickly on the issue of same-sex marriage. On MTV on Nov. 1, 2008, the president was asked about same-sex marriage. He responded, “I’ve stated my opposition to this. I think it’s unnecessary. I believe marriage is between a man and a woman. And, I’m not in favor of gay marriage.”

For most of her career in politics, Mrs. Clinton supported many gay-rights stances but opposed same-sex marriage, favoring arrangements like civil unions that fell short of marriage. Not until 2013 did she take the position that gays and lesbians should be allowed to marry.

The Republican Party has been slower to embrace same-sex marriage, often because it conflicts with beliefs based on moral values. The Republican Party is beginning to change its stance on the issue as the attitude among Republicans is beginning to reflect those of younger politically active members. According to a Pew study, 54 percent of self-identified Republicans under 30 “favor allowing gays and lesbians to marry legally.” The Republican Party, if it wishes to remain relevant, must look within itself to not exclude candidates, volunteers, donors or members, based on any one issue, including this one.

It is OK and it is healthy to have disagreements within a political party. To expect all members to have one social position, or one economic position, is like asking someone to agree with their spouse, parents or kids on every issue. Reality is that simply won’t happen. I can’t think of a more boring organization to belong to if everyone agreed on every subject.

The Republican and Democratic parties have long struggled on the issue of a litmus test for members and candidates. A litmus test is the use of a single indicator to prompt a decision. Are you for same-sex marriage? Should gun laws be more restrictive? Should Roe v. Wade be overturned? Should marijuana be legalized? Taxes raised? If you agree with someone in one political party 70 percent of the time that is probably the political party or candidate you need to support. If you are looking for someone or some party to agree with 100 percent of the time, I recommend you look in a mirror, support yourself and join your own political party.

My point of view is actually pretty simple on these two landmark cases. I think the Supreme Court overstepped its bounds and chose to act like a Congress and a president and created new law. Being able to disagree, look for common ground and move forward is a key part of living in a democracy. Elections have consequences, and if you agree or disagree, maybe the past week will inspire you to become involved in the 2016 elections.

 

Brian Hensley is chairman of the Freeborn County Republican Party.