Friday, May 16, 2008

Thwarted Again

It's happened again. Yesterday four members of California's Supreme Court flipped the bird to the people of that state and ruled that gay marriage must be allowed, despite the voters' rejection of it. When is this going to stop? When are activist judges going to return to their role as interpreters, not makers, of law? When are they going to stop spitting on the will of the people?

I'm sick of this! From gay marriage to illegal immigration we, the American people, are being spat on by judges and/or elected officials who think their job is to impose their "enlightened" views on us. The issue really isn't gay marriage, illegal immigration, or other things. The issue is the perversion of the American way of government by liberals who are committed only to their agenda, not to the political rules or moral heritage of our Republic.

Throughout America's history there have been people who wanted to change things. The movements against slavery and for women's suffrage are prime examples of that. And that's fine. If you want to change something in this country you're perfectly free to try, but there are rules to follow. If you want to repeal or add a law you lobby the legislature, and if you don't get your way you don't then get the courts to impose your change for you. That, however, has been the strategy of liberals, on both the state and federal levels, ever since Roe v. Wade. And it's kept this country in a state of constant ideological conflict.

Take Roe v. Wade for instance. It was the unconstitutional way the law was imposed, and not just revulsion against abortion, that has fanned the flames of the abortion controversy. If the fight over abortion was returned to the states like capital punishment was it would be a much less bitter and divisive issue. It's the same with gay marriage. In state after state gay marriage activists have failed to persuade most people to their point of view. But rather than redouble their efforts to change the public's mind they opt for the Left's usual tactic in the face of defeat: using the courts to impose their agenda.

It's amazing to me that liberals don't understand how much ill will this strategy has earned them. Many people who might be willing to accept gay marriage if it's voted in fairly are turned off by the courts shoving it, or anything else, down their throats. Liberals don't care. They are committed to "enlightening" us lunch pail folks, from the top down if need be. It's for our own good, don't cha know. This paternalistic attitude is one reason why I oppose liberalism.

I believe in persuading people to a point of view. I believe the legislature makes laws and the judiciary interprets them. I believe the Constitution is a "living" document only when it's amended the way the Founding Fathers intended. I DON'T believe in perverting our system in order to impose laws, policies, ideas, or values on the people when the people have already declared they don't want them. Sorry, liberals, but not everyone thinks your views are progressive; in fact, many of us find them downright corrupt, and forcing them on us after we've said "No!" only alienates us more. So, the California Supreme Court's decision may be a hollow victory for gays and their allies. The people of California have seen their will treated with total contempt. When they speak again it won't be pretty for the Left. I can't wait.


JMK said...

You're right Seane-Anna, from Eminent Domain (the Kelo Decision) to the Samnesty Bill to THIS, it is always "the elites" imposing their "interpretations"...their "vision" on everyone else.

That's the very essence of TYRANNY.

There is, however, ONE silver lining in all this, these four judges have made Gay Marriage a hot-button issue again.

G W Bush and the Republicans benefitted by a number of Ballot Referendums in the past few elections. Even in 2006 when the Conservative "Blue Dog" Democrats scored a coup for that Party, ballot initiatives on Gay Marriage passed with more than 2/3s of Americans opposing gay Marriage. the anti-gay Marriage inititiatives passed in 7 of 8 states, anti-Eminent Domain initiatives passed in 11 of 12 states and very Blue MI passed Ward Connerly's Civil Rights initiative barring racial/ethnic preferences by nearly 2 to 1.

With this ruling, it is virtually assured that Gay Marriage will once again be a major issue and possibly a major Ballot initiative in a number of states - that would motivate more Conservatives to come out to vote, even if McCain doesn't enthuse them.

That may prove to be an advantage for McCain.

That remains to be seen.

But if this kind of tyranny doesn't motivate enough Americans to outrage, then perhaps nothing ever will.

Tapline said...

Unfortunately, I believe justices on the State Supreme Courts, the same as the US Supreme Court is for life. The reason????maybe so they are uncorruptable. The founders never thought they would make the laws, just interpret them, Unfortunately that is no longer the case as we all know. How will we change it possibly by offering a constitutional amendment for term limits rather than life appointment...stay well....

mccommas said...

Well I would generally agree with except for two things.

One, its simply unfair to put to put a question like this on the ballot. We have a republican, small r, form of government for a reason. We decide who decides these matters because a straight democracy would not respect the rights of minorities as well -- if at all. A representative will more carefully consider the big picture than your average voters will. The mob tends to vote only in their own perceived best interests and they do have prejudices even today.

You are asking the majority to decide whether or not a minority should have full civil rights. What would be your reaction if they put on the ballot "Should Blacks have the right to marry" or Should women have the right to vote?". What about interracial marriage? Should we put that on the ballot next?

Although that would be insulting, Blacks and women have nothing to worry about since the majority thinks they should have those rights. In the case of women, they are the majority both in terms of voting and actual population.

But what about the lesser minorities, the more unpopular cases? In some states if you put on the ballot, "Should gays have the right to vote", its questionable whether or not the majority would say 'yes'. And what if a state did that? How would you have the federal courts react to that? Is it really different than what they did do?

I am not sure how the Cally court reasoned it's opinion but if it based it on the the Fourteenth Amendment's equal protection clause than I think they are, for once, on solid footing.

I don't think the equal protection clause goes as far as giving us homosexuals the right to marry although that may seem like a reasonable extrapolation to some ( I think its best when the courts don't extrapulate to much). I do think Equal Protection Clause stops the government from banning that right afforded to heterosexuals. The court should have left the political question to the elected branches rather than deciding it for themselves. There you and I agree.

The anti-marriage law after all is a mere statute and where statutes run afoul with the clear meaning of the Constitution, it must be voided. The Constitution is the highest law of the land.

Section 1. 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".

More narrowly:

"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States".

Marriage is a privilege, isn't it?

And here:

"nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws".

Somehow I can't imagine any alternative meaning to that last line other than we are all equal and the anti-marriage law conflicts with it.

It would be best if granting gay people the right to marry was passed through statute law and eventually that will happen. We did it in Connecticut though they call it "civil unions" which I am sad to say is meant to be inferior to real marriage. However its a foot in the door. When people get used to the idea, someday it will be changed to marriage.

Giving full civil rights to homosexuals is America's last frontier on civil rights. We did it for Blacks and women and now its our turn. It is not going to be easy. The best way to go about it is to have an long exhaustive debate on who deserves what rights and who does not.