Not surprisingly, a sodomite judge overturned a constitutional amendment banning sodomite marriage.
It’s important to be clear on the real issue. The question at issue is not whether sodomite marriage should be legal or illegal. Rather, what’s at stake is whether the people control their gov’t, or their gov’t controls the people. If the citizens of a state don’t have the right to amend the state constitution, then they don’t have any rights. At that point, popular sovereignty has been abolished. In its place is a self-appointed, self-perpetuating bureaucracy answerable to no one, but holding everyone answerable to itself.
One point, that is the elephant in the room, is that the sodomite judge should never have been allowed to hear the case in the first place. His bias should have disqualified him.
ReplyDeleteThere are plenty of normal judges who are both for and against sodomite "marriage". However, I don't know of a single sodomite judge (or a single sodomite, really) who is against it. Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?
This is going to be a pyrrhic victory for the pro-homosexual lobby. It will get to SCOTUS and be promptly overturned 5-4. That will hopefully settle the matter, especially if in the opinion they make it clear that the Federal Courts have no authority to define marriage, which they don't.
Jonah said:
ReplyDelete---
However, I don't know of a single sodomite judge (or a single sodomite, really) who is against it. Anyone?
---
I know one (not a judge) who was against Prop 8, but once it passed did agree that it was constitutional, and thus disagrees with what this judge did. But you are correct: they will be very rare out there.
We've long been a nation that ignores the Constitution. We're a Republic in name only, and certainly nowhere near politically free.
But I do think this judge just gave Republicans a 5-10% boost in the 2010 elections. The only problem is until the legislative and executive branches actually oppose the judiciary (on the basis of the three *EQUAL* branches of government and all), then the judiciary will continue to be our black-robed dictators running everything.
I wouldn't be so sure that SCOTUS will overturn. Kennedy authored Lawrence vs. Texas, so unless he's changed his mind, it will not be overturned.
ReplyDeleteNeal,
ReplyDeleteUnless Kennedy agrees that the people have the right to pass constitutional amendments like, you know, the Constitution says, then I think you're correct. That's what it will boil down to. Does Kennedy seek to pass a homosexual agenda at the expense of gutting any semblance of following the Constitution, or does he realize the damage done would be too great? I expect the former.
Peter,
ReplyDeleteI hope you're right. Kennedy is so unpredictable though I could see it go either way.
Be careful what you wish for.
ReplyDeleteReligion is not an immutable characteristic. It is, like homosexuality, a lifestyle "choice". Yet, we protect religious expression in the United States (though it is being challenged in some venues, certainly).
Should a Muslim majority decide to amend the Constitution to eradicate the rights of Christians so that sharia may be implemented, the only recourse is the notion that a majority cannot rule the minority without some compelling evidence that it is necessary for the public good.
If you've not read the Prop 8 transcripts, I'd suggest you do so. The Prop 8 witnesses were not compelling in that they failed to demonstrate how banning gay marriage was necessary for preserving heterosexual marriage or for any other public good, for that matter.
JAMES SAID:
ReplyDelete"Should a Muslim majority decide to amend the Constitution to eradicate the rights of Christians so that sharia may be implemented, the only recourse is the notion that a majority cannot rule the minority without some compelling evidence that it is necessary for the public good."
Muslims majorities never respect minority rights, anyway. And a piece of paper wouldn't stop them, for a piece of paper must be enforced, and a Muslim majority would never permit it to be enforced in the interests of religious minorities.
"If you've not read the Prop 8 transcripts, I'd suggest you do so. The Prop 8 witnesses were not compelling in that they failed to demonstrate how banning gay marriage was necessary for preserving heterosexual marriage or for any other public good, for that matter."
Why do CA voters have to justify their vote to a judge? They have a right to amend the state constitution. That's the point.
James,
ReplyDeleteYou seem to forget that that Constitution has already had a bad amendment that was later repealed, and the dictators in robes issued horrific decisions that were later overturned. One of them needed a Civil War before that decision was overturned, you know.
In any case, I trust the American public as a whole far more than I trust the opinion of 9 members of the despotic branch, as Jefferson called it.
"They have a right to amend the state constitution."
ReplyDeleteSo is this an unlimited right of any majority? Are there no constraints whatsoever upon the majority in terms of whom the impact or how? If there are, what are the parameters? (I'm not saying I know, I'm just wondering.)
I'm asking this from a legal perspective. If majority rule is the last word in terms of how we define the rights of all citizens, then you may as well throw out the notion of "inalienable rights" because they can be curtailed by the whim of a majority (whomever they happen to be).
James,
ReplyDeleteIt requires a super-majority to amend the US Constitution. State constitutions are decided by the states (as they should be, because you are always free to leave a state should you not like it there; and if all 50 states pass the same law, well you're dealing with a super-majority anyway).
On the national level, the super-majority ensures that the problems you envision of mob rule do not entail, and that minority rights are maintained.
James,
ReplyDeleteNo system provides a fail-safe against potential abuse. So the question is whether you vest ultimate authority in majorities/supermajorities or unaccountable bureaucrats. Mobocracy is a danger, but is that a greater danger than a totalitarian dictatorship?
"One point, that is the elephant in the room, is that the sodomite judge should never have been allowed to hear the case in the first place. His bias should have disqualified him."
ReplyDeleteWhy? I mean, how is there any safeguard against bias if the judge was straight? Also, couldn't the people fighting for bans against homosexuality say that such an implication begs the whole question?
Manhattan Declaration!
ReplyDeleteYou know, I hear Switzerland is nice...
ReplyDeleteGood climate. Highest per capita income and lowest unemployment in the world.
They have compulsory health insurance but it's not run by the government. You buy licensed private insurance, just like auto insurance.
They have "domestic partnerships" but homosexuals cannot marry or jointly adopt children. I could maybe live with that in a civil government sense. In the matter of DP's, the state can create whatever contractual rights it wants to. Is it a good idea? No. Would I vote for it? No. But it might be a livable system, given the above parameters, and at least the kids would be better protected.