LETTER- <span class="s1">Bell protests too much</span>
In "Some general assembly required" [June 29], Delegate Rob Bell discusses his support for the proposed constitutional amendment that would restrict the right of persons to contract outside of marriage and would define marriage by gender. He is quoted as saying that courts in other states have "intervened" to overturn state law, and "We want to make sure courts are not defying the law."
Bell is a lawyer as well as a delegate. He has an obligation to maintain respect for the courts as well as to refrain from intemperate public statements. He knows that courts do not intervene but are sometimes called upon to perform the sacred function of listening to those small voices who beseech the courts for protection against the overarching power of arbitrary authority.
He knows that courts do not defy the law; rather they interpret the statutory law and set civilized limits. The courts may impede Bell and his concomitants from asserting power to deprive individuals of rights, but that's the judiciary's function under the law.
Any intervention or defiance against the law is embodied in this case in the very effort Bell defends. We are the law, as agreed in our constitution, and we must not support ugly attempts to pull the threads of individual liberty from that constitution.