Monday, October 30, 2006

Judicial tyranny

Friday night I wrote a post giving some of the dissenting arguments of Justice Scalia in the 2003 Supreme Court case of Lawrence v. Texas.  In that case, the Supreme Court ruled illegally and immorally that States could not have laws criminalizing homosexual behavior.  In his dissent, Justice Scalia wrote “… the Court has taken sides in the cultural war.”  He further proclaimed that legalizing homosexual behavior would quite probably, in the future, lead the Court to permit homosexual marriage.  I summed up his argument this way:

In short, if homosexual behavior is protected by the Constitution and is a perceived Constitutional right, how can anyone logically deny homosexuals the right to marry?  Only an irrational person would proclaim that one is legal but the other can not occur.

Of course, the United States Supreme Court is not the only Court that is rewriting Constitutions to suit the opinions of the court members and thus disregarding the Constitutional intent of a particular Constitution.

The New Jersey Supreme Court has recently decided that the members of the court are more qualified to make policy that is their State legislature.  The Peoria Journal Star published an article dealing with the New Jersey court decision on 10/26/06 page A3.  However, the article did not include some information included in the more complete article that I found on the Internet.  Therefore, I will be quoting from the Internet article.  The article was from The Associated Press and I got it from, Main news, October 25, 2006.

Quoting from the article:

“New Jersey’s highest court opened the door Wednesday to making the state the second in the nation to allow gay marriage, ruling that lawmakers must offer same-sex couples either marriage or something like it, such as civil unions.”

“The justices gave law lawmakers 180 days to rewrite the laws.”

“The ruling is similar to the 1999 high-court ruling in Vermont that led the state to create civil unions, which confer all of the rights and benefits available to married couples under state law.”

(The decision was a 4-3 decision.)  “The three dissenters argued that the majority did not go far enough.  They demanded full marriage for gays.”

“GOP Assemblyman Richard Merkt said he would seek to have all seven justices impeached.  ‘Neither the framers of New Jersey’s 1947 constitution, nor the voters who ratified it, ever remotely contemplated the possibility of same-sex marriage,’ Merkt said”

“Supporters pushing for full gay marriage have had a two-year losing streak in state courts, including those in New York, Washington, state, and both Nebraska and Georgia, where voter-approved bans on gay marriage were reinstated.

They also suffered at the ballot boxes in 20 states where constitutions have been amended to ban same-sex unions.

Cases similar to the one ruled on Wednesday, which was filed by seven gay New Jersey couples, are pending in California, Connecticut, Iowa and Maryland.”

Here is the situation.  Throughout the nation homosexual activists who a few short years ago were screaming “Government stay out of our bedroom” are now screaming “Government sanctify our bedroom” by granting us a “right” that we have NEVER had in this nation—the “right” to legally marry.  Since they are not successful at the ballot box and almost never successful at the legislature, which is suppose to be the policy making body in our system, they have turned to the courts.  And, lo and behold, every once in awhile they can convince a few judges that there is a state constitutional requirement that homosexuals must be allowed to marry.

Note that the newest New Jersey Constitution was written in 1947.  Note that the plain language of that Constitution did NOT allow homosexuals to marry or there would be no question about it now.  Note that for 59 years after that Constitution was written, New Jersey’s highest court did NOT find that the Constitution allowed homosexuals to marry.  Note that now, miraculously, New Jersey’s high court discovered a hidden “right” that had never been discovered before.  Note that the New Jersey court ordered the legislature to write a new law to allow homosexuals to marry or the equivalent.  Note that writing law is a policy making power.  

So, when did our courts become the policy making branch of governments?  If the courts now make policy and can order the same, why do we need state legislatures?  Indeed all seven of the court members should be impeached and convicted for usurping their authority and violating the very Constitution they have sworn to uphold.

If the court in New Jersey can rule that homosexuals must be allowed to marry or similar, what is to prevent the court in Illinois from reaching the same conclusion?  First, we need a Illinois Constitutional Amendment to define marriage as a union between one man and one woman.  However, that is not sufficient.  The fact of the matter is that the United States Supreme Court can at anytime, once a case is brought before it, rule that such State Constitutional Amendments, state laws, and even our federal laws are unconstitutional according to the federal Constitution.  The Supreme Court has already ruled that State laws criminalizing homosexual acts are not permissible.  

As Justice Scalia observed in the Lawrence v. Texas travesty, the next logical step is to require States to allow marriage between homosexuals.  The only way to insure that does not happen is a federal Constitutional Amendment defining marriage as being between one man and one woman.  Not even the United States Supreme Court has yet dared to rule that a Constitutional Amendment is unconstitutional.

As I’ve said before, I am a lifelong Democrat.  I ran for the Arizona House of Representatives twice as a Democrat.  I promised GOD that I would not vote for another Democrat unless he/she loudly and publicly proclaimed his opposition to the murder of unborn babies and promised to vote accordingly.  I promised GOD that I would not vote for another Democrat unless he/she loudly and publicly proclaimed his support for a Protect Marriage Constitutional Amendment and promised to vote accordingly.

Obviously, the Republican Party is not perfect.  However, the members of the Republican Party are the only choice in our two party system to reestablish the GOD defined morality that the libertine Democrats have been trying to fling over a cliff.  Unfortunately, they have been way too successful.  Why would any Christian vote for the party that has made it their goal to promote sin?  We need more Republicans in both the House and the Senate at both the State and federal levels until the Democrats come to their senses.  The Democrats are the party of the sinful nature much more than the Republican Party with all of its faults.

“Do not be deceived: God cannot be mocked.  A man reaps what he sows.  The one who sows to please his sinful nature, from that nature will reap destruction; the one who sows to please the Spirit, from the Spirit will reap eternal life.” Galatians 6: 7-9 (NIV)                      


Post a Comment

<< Home