Brookfield Basics

With these three words the Supreme Court of New Jersey spoke volumes about why ballot initiatives on the institution of marriage, such as the one we face in this State next week, are appearing all over the country. Their decision further reads, "We have decided that our State Constitution guarantees that every statutory right and benefit conferred to heterosexual couples through civil marriage, must be made available to committed same-sex couples".

Now I want to be very clear on what this column is about. It is NOT about the specific issue of same-sex marriage; that is a question to be debated on spiritual, social, and cultural grounds. It is about the political PROCESS involved with reaching such decisions.

On the Federal level, nine APPOINTED people should not, in my view, be able to make ANYTHING "the law of the land"; that is a legislative function. I am opposed to any amendment to the U.S. Constitution that would EITHER ban OR establish same-sex marriage. I am opposed to Roe v. Wade, but am ALSO opposed to any decision from the Supreme Court that would BAN abortion. These convictions are rooted in my POLITICAL beliefs as to the role of the Federal judiciary. The intent of the Founders was to leave such matters to the adjudication of the States, and to their respective peoples and legislatures. Why should nine appointed people in Washington DC decide what is best for the good people of New York and Montana, or Wisconsin and Utah? The Founders saw this as not only the proper way to govern, but there can be little doubt that if such an approach was used, there would be far less national strife over such matters.

The arrogance of their decision may have given even the "New Jersy Nine" pause, as they later attempted to throw some obligatory sops to the notion of the democratic legislative process. They further wrote that, "the great engine for social change has always been the democratic process", and still later, "a constitution is not simply an empty receptacle into which judges may pour their own conceptions of evolving social mores". But after applying this balm to their sensitive judicial consciences, they rejected their own common sense, and plunged ahead with re-engineering the social and cultural landscape of their State. In its most elemental form, this decision sent the message to the citizens of New Jersey that, "we are not interested in what you may think or believe", for in our great wisdom and beneficence, "WE HAVE DECIDED".

Again, such matters are best fit for the legislative chambers of our State and Federal governments. There they could be debated under the full gaze and scrutiny of the voting public, where legislators facing re-election by that same public would give an account for their decisions. This was the intention of the Founders, and the fact that they could not have foreseen such specific societal questions, in no way diminishes the effectiveness of the institutions they fashioned to handle such matters.

The reason there is such a concern in America today about the issue of judicial overreach is because it happens so regularly, and in this case of New Jersey, so blatantly. Whether you are FOR or AGAINST the idea of same-sex marriage, give some thought to this question of what political process is best employed to decide such issues.

And if you wonder why Wisconsinites are facing a ballot initiative next week regarding the institution of marriage, I would submit that it is as much about controlling runaway judiciaries as it is about the legitimate social and cultural concerns it raises.

On Tuesday October 17, Donna Shalala, President of the University of Miami and Ex-Chancellor of the University of Wisconsin, held a press conference to address the aftermath of the Miami vs. Florida Inernational University football game played on October 14. She opened her statement with that famous line of Harry Truman's, saying "the buck stops here". Truman backed up those mighty words with his heartland-bred courage. Unfortunately for the state of American academics and athletics, Ms. Shalala lacks the fortitude of "Give 'em Hell Harry", and by her actions, made it clear that the buck does not even slow down at her office.

I will not comment in detail on the ugly incident that erupted in the middle of the game. Those of you that saw it don't need it recounted. For those who did not, the thin veneer of civilization that has long been peeling off the University of Miami's football program was pulled off in one violent jerk, exposing it for what it is: a collection of self-involved thugs, whose coaches long ago disgraced their responsibilities. My comments are being directed at Miami and Ms. Shalala because, while the actions of the players of FIU were equally inexcusable, that University's coach and Administrators reacted with courage and leaderhsip.

The entire tone of Ms. Shalala's conference was one of smug self-righteousness, as she took obvious pride in "refusing to throw our great kids under the bus", and in chiding the media for its "feeding frenzy".

YO - Donna! It's not about the media. It's about the student-athletes and WHAT THEY DID. Instead of assuming the mantle of leadership her high office would seemingly bestow, she instead chose to chastise anyone who would dare suggest that the punks her University trots out on to the field each week needed a punishment greater than the gratuitous one-game suspensions she dispensed to all but the most egregious offender. With her every word she demonstrated that any of us who might feel differently are simply unenlightened bumpkins, and that it was her job to get us to see a higher way, rather than tend to the obvious task of adequately disciplining those involved.

Five years ago I made a prediction to a good friend of mine. I suggested that within the period of the next TEN years, we would witness a death at a US sporting event, resulting from violence directly associated with the game itself. While I obviously hope to be proven wrong, the incident of October 14, and Ms. Shalala's pathetically inadequate response to it, give me no reason to retract that prediction.

We do not come to such a place in large, easily recognizable steps. We instead proceed down a slippery slope, where the descent into a coarse and violent culture occurs in small steps, over many years. And like the proverbial frog in the slowly heated pot of water, we become insensitive to our peril, until one day while staring blankly at our TV screens, we see violent thugs running around a football field, wantonly spreading mayhem and destruction in their wake. We ask ourselves, "how did we ever get to this point"? There are many reasons, but chief amongst them is an abysmal failure of leadership on the part of people WHO OUGHT TO KNOW BETTER.

Ms. Shalala may serve as the head of a prominent American University. And she may have worked ninety miles away from our community, serving as the head of the University of Wisconsin.

But in my view, she is no educator.