Sure, Gay marriage is fine; as a libertarian, I see little or no governmental interest in discriminating against and restricting same sex couples from participating in the full legal right, dignity and respect that society grants those joined in the bonds of matrimony. Simultaneously, I do not condemn, or even criticize, those who oppose same sex marriages based upon their religious faith. Those folks are not bigots or haters, so long as they don't abuse or mistreat homosexual persons they encounter in life.
In my acceptance of the rights of gay to marry, I am joined by millions of other Americans. Indeed, this societal preference for full civil rights for gay couples is so equitably fair that within the next few years a vast majority support by the nation's electorate is inevitable, in my judgment.
Instead of allowing democracy to craft public policy - as this cultural institution of a family's legal composition has been handled since the founding of our country - five unelected, unaccountable lawyers (for God's sake) have totally eviscerated the nation's Constitutional self-government - "... of the people, BY the people ...".
Nonetheless, vast multitudes of people have now hailed the Supreme Court as being the greatest moral and legal institution in all of recorded human history. How incongruous - when all power of government to establish what is fundamental law resides in five unaccountable persons, these titans of wisdom - self determined by the way - have appointed themselves America's rulers-for-life, or better known as: "We don't need no stinkin Legislature".
Hey, the Divine Right of Kings is a swell gig, so tell me, who, with an ego as large as Justice Kennedy's, would turn down the chance to become one of the immortals - his name eternally to be spoken of in reverence as the Great Emancipator!
Yes, how incongruous for millions to be celebrating their complete disenfranchisement. American democracy, the liberty of 320 million citizens to chart our own governing principles, seems worth a year or two to reform a marriage code that was in place for the entire 230 years of our collective self-governing experience.
It should be a self-evident truth to every celebrant of this declaration of judicial supremacy - when judges can create, all rights by simple fiat (by their wise words scrolled on parchment to be handed out to their subjects), they therefore must have identical powers to take all those same civil rights from us by their identical whim. Who can still assert that judicial powers are checked or balanced in our Constitutional system of three co-equal branches of government?
A few weeks ago a state trial judge in New York presided over a day long hearing on whether captivated jungle animals are entitled to the full array of human civil rights enshrined in our nation's Constitution and legislatively enacted statutes. Oblivious to the indisputable truth that our nation that adopted the Constitution knew the difference between a human being and a baboon, this arrogant jurist's disdain for the democratic formulation of public policy was on full display. Now, don't get me wrong, I work tirelessly to strengthen animal protection laws by interacting with my representatives in Congress who speak for us all on such matters of national policy. This New York Judge decided she was in charge, and legislators were as useless as stinkin badges!
Such a coup de'tat by judges seems incomprehensible to all freedom loving citizens who believe in representative self government. Most assuredly, when animals are deemed entitled to be awarded civil rights by a court of wisdom (not law), soon it is likely judges will feel empowered to remove and deny civil rights to pre-born children, with no allowance for legislative or executive consultations.
No comments:
Post a Comment