Mark Levin: It's Not a Matter of Equal Protection, So Why Should Courts Intervene?

By Susan Jones | March 27, 2013 | 9:33am EDT

Crowds gather outside the U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday, March 26, 2013. (AP Photo)

( - The same-sex marriage case argued before the Supreme Court on Tuesday has no business being there, says conservative talk show host Mark Levin.

"Where there's not a clear federal constitutional issue...then why should the federal courts intervene? Why should the Supreme Court intervene? The equal protection clause doesn't say the 'liberal promotion clause' or the 'radical egalitarianism clause,' where people can pour their economic, social and cultural agendas into the Constitution for the courts to decide."

The 14th Amendment, which contains the equal protection clause (see text below), does not mean "everybody is the same, everything is uniform," Levin said. It's not a "grab bag for every egalitarian dream on the face of the earth."

If the player does not load, please check that you are running the latest version of Adobe Flash Player.

Looking at the amendment's history, Levin explained that it was passed as an "exclamation mark after the Civil War to make it clear once and for all that blacks are Americans, too, and they're to be treated as Americans in every state of the country. It had nothing to do with socialism," Levin continued. "It had nothing to do with same-sex marriage; it had nothing to do with equal pay."

In 1967, the Supreme Court overturned Virginia's prohibition on interracial marriage, but Levin says the issue was not marriage itself -- it was a case of marriage being used to perpetuate segregation and racism.

Levin questioned why the nation's most difficult societal questions should be decided by "five lawyers" on the Supreme Court: "I thought we believed in federalism," he said. "If all prudence was in nine people on the Supreme Court, why have a Congress, why have a president, why have state governments at all? Just send them (the Justices) every issue to decide!"

Levin said he thinks the Supreme Court should strike down all lower-court rulings on California's Proposition 8.

"And the (Supreme) Court should say, we had no business in this case. The people in California voted to pass Proposition 8, to amend their constitution. Maybe in ten years they'll pass another proposition to reverse course. But there's no federal constitutional violation here. This is not the same as segregation and racism -- this is not a matter of equal protection."

Levin said the American people should move at their own speed when making important societal decisions unless those decisions clearly violate the U.S. Constitution.

"But we have people in this country who play the ambiguities, who run for the gaps," he said. Instead of waiting for the slow machinery of the 'body politic' to gradually come to consensus, they run to the courts and try to get rulings that impose their will." That's what happened with the abortion ruling, Roe v. Wade -- and it's "a very dangerous thing," Levin said.


Section 1 of the 14th Amendment reads: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.


Also see:
To the Plaintiffs, It's All About 'Equality'

MRC Store