The U.S. Constitution, and the way it came about, is something of a miracle. That's how I think of it. That's how most people think of it But that's not the way it's taught anymore. Today it's taught as something that is just there in the way of us passing our selfish agenda, and if we need to we can change it and remake it. Of course when you do that you water it down so it has no real meaning.
Look at the gay marriage argument. In order for the judges to rule on gay marriage they had to find some way that it was contained in the Constitution, which it is not. But they found a way, pulled it out of thin air, and somehow found a way that the 14th amendment says that gays have a constitutional right to marry.
So in order for this to happen, they had to water down the constitution. They had to water down religious freedom and water down the freedom of speech. This is the kind of thing people look at when they say they don't want to change tradition. It's not that people are opposed to gay people. It's not that they don't want gay people to share their lives. It's that they don't want the greatest miracle ever written to become watered down so it has no meaning.
You know, words mean things. But if you are going to adjust here, and tinker there, to make the Constitution say whatever you want it to say so you can get what YOU want, then it means nothing. It's nothing but a piece of paper with words that mean nothing.
Believe it or not, there are people in this country who care about things larger than themselves. When I wrote my list of priorities, I put God, Country, then wife and then my kids. I don't even rate myself, nor what I want, in the top ten. Somewhere in there I put my job, and my friends, and my parents, but no where do I even rank myself. It's not that I don't care about myself, it's not that I don't have desires and wants, but I know that there are things larger than myself.
I know that if I change the Constitution to get what I want, then the next generation can change the constitution to get whatever they want -- and it may be far worse than gay marriage. This is what I mean when I say that the Constitution is etched in stone, that it is effective for all time not to be changed. When it's etched in stone, when interpreted as written, it means something. Now that you just change it to get your selfish desires, it means less.
The Constitution is one of those things that is larger than we are. It should be around for many more years to come, but it might not be if we keep watering it down. I don't look at the political system as a way I can get more stuff for myself. Yet the left has used it to get gay marriage for itself. It has abused the system. Justice Kennedy has abused the system. They used the political system as a game, rather than something that means something.
Neither abortion nor marriage are mentioned in the Constitution. And yet here you have the Supreme Court ruling on both of them as though they were The 10th amendment states that what is not mentioned in the Constitution is left to the states to decide.
That's what was happening, and 36 states had changed the law so two men could marry. But now the Supreme Court comes in and makes gay marriage legal in the other states without in any way considering the 10th amendment. That's wrong. It's happening because people are no longer taught that the constitution is special.
States lose their sovereignty in the process. Many of the founders would not have signed the Constitution unless the states were able to hold onto their rights. They certainly wouldn't have signed onto it had they known judges would some day be able to make laws.
So my liberal friends say there will be no slippery slope whereby polygamy will be legalized, or priests will be told they have to marry gays. The point is it's going to happen precisely because the Supreme Court's decision on homosexual cannot say it can't.
Showing posts with label Supreme Court. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Supreme Court. Show all posts
Tuesday, June 30, 2015
Sunday, June 28, 2015
Gay marriage is legal, so now what? I't
I'm standing neutral on the Supreme Court decision to make gay marriage legal across the nation. I'm just enjoying the various discussions going on, and reading and listening to the various comments on the ruling. However, and regardless of how you feel about the ruling, there are a few things that are very concerning about the Court's actions.
1. Liberties. I have trouble being upset with any ruling that grants more people more liberties. The 1% of Americans (that's 50% of the gay population) that yearned to change the Constitution to allow gay marriage across the nation now can get married. So yay!
2. How it was done. The court decided it was a civil rights violation, and they used Section 1 of the Fourteen Amendment to justify its argument, which reads: Amendment XIV 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.
Personally, I find this stunning. If you read the Constitution, it says nothing about gay marriage. It does, however, recognize the natural right to enter into a contract. Still, it does not define contract. So, based on the 10th amendment, this decision was left to the states to decide. Prior to the ruling, 36 states defined marriage as between two people, while the rest defined it as between a man and a woman. This process was completely constitutional.
Now, enter Amendment XIV Section 1, which essentially states that the laws of a state shall be applied equally to every person in that state. So, in the states that banned gay marriage, no man could marry any man, and no woman could marry any woman. This was not a violation of civil rights so long as a state didn't say this man can marry this man, but this man cannot marry that man.
Here the Supreme Court, or five men in robes, decide that if gay marriage is legal in 36 states, then the fact that it is illegal in the rest of the states is a violation of the civil rights of gay people in those states. This is an absolute violation of Federalism.
So, that gay people can marry is fine, it's just how it was done that I have a problem with. Which segues us to...
3. The slippery slope. Or, in other words, the unintended consequences. There have been people in this country who have been on an all out onslaught of the second amendment right to bear arms. Some states have made laws banning people from carrying weapons, while others have laws allowing people to carry weapons. According to Allen West, "YEEhaw! This side-effect of the gay marriage ruling will make liberals EXPLODE," we all have a civil right to carry guns.
Some believe it will lead to polygamy. Now that marriage has been redefined by the left, if some man came along and says he wants to marry five women, there is no way we can tell him no. Before marriage had a specific definition, and now there is no definition. Marriage is now an open ended word. It can mean whatever you want it to mean, so long as you have, as Justice Kennedy said, what you need to have "self esteem and dignity." I mean, that sort of leaves the definition WIDE open. Marriage can now be whatever you want. Hey, maybe you can even have two robots marry like they did in Japan.
And then there are some who believe liberals are going to come after religion. I discuss that slippery slope below. Still, my liberal friends believe the slippery slope theory is poppycock. I don't know where they get their confidence from. They say we are panicking for no reason. But there is reason. It's right there in the Kennedy ruling: there is no way out now for those who oppose this. It's about fairness. Marriage was something that some people could do and others could not, and that's not fair. This gay marriage debate was not about gays, it was about marriage. So if you have a priest refuse to marry a gay couple, that's not fair. So you bet it will come to that at some point, if it hasn't happened already. More on this below.
One more thing about slippery slopes. Some say I'm being paranoid when I speak of slippery slopes. "Oh, it can't happen," they say. "I'm not worried about slippery slopes," they say. Just because your'e paranoid does not mean you are wrong. But I'm not paranoid in this instance. It's knowledge. You obtain such knowledge by studying history, keeping up with true events, and through experience.
4. Unintended Consequences. Look, folks, happy or not, this ruling is a violation of Federalism. Federalism means that each state can make it's own laws regarding anything not mentioned in the Constitution. So the ruling essentially makes many other laws null and void. For instance, if it is unconstitutional for two gay men to get married, then how can it be unconstitutional for two Christian boys to pray in school?
5. The Power of the Courts. The purpose of courts is to make sure the law is followed. They are not supposed to make rulings based on politics, they are supposed to make rulings based on the law. I fear that what they did was make the Constitution irrelevant, which is exactly what the left wants. As Justice Antonio Scalia said in his dissent, there was a debate going on in this country, and many were deciding in favor of gay marriage. So they were winning. Now the debate is shut down. Many have had something forced on them that they are not ready to accept. Once again the Supreme Court has made a decision that will divide this nation much the way Rowe -v- Wade did.
6. Will religion go extinct. We know that many progressives want to see religion go away, and this ruling may just cause that to happen. While judges now have to marry people of the same sex, priests and pastors consider doing so a violation of their religious freedom. I can see a law being passed by some future president that states that a church will lose their tax exempt status if they refuse to marry same sex couples. If this happens, it will mean the end of religion as we know it. Many churches will go bankrupt.
My liberal friends say it won't come to this. But even so, Justice Kennedy set the stage for it when he said that if you are a deeply religious person, a priest or a pastor of a church, you're free to dissent, meaning you're free to tell people you disagree. But you are not free to act on it. In other words, "You can't deny the constitutional right we just ordained. You can argue against it, you can say you don't like it, and you'll be okay. But you cannot practice that. You can not!" In other words, "If two gay Catholics want you to marry them, you cannot deny them that right. If you do, there might be a lawsuit." It could be that this has happened already.
When it does, if it does, it will be the end of the Catholic Church, and that will be a bonus to the left.
7. John Roberts dissenting opinion. "If you are among the many Americans -- of whatever sexual orientation -- who favor expanding same-sex marriage, by all means celebrate today's decision. Celebrate the achievement of a desired goal. Celebrate the opportunity for a new expression of commitment to a partner. Celebrate the availability of new benefits. But do not celebrate the Constitution. It had nothing to do with it." He also said, "Five lawyers have closed the debate and enacted their own vision of marriage as a matter of constitutional law." He's right.
8. Religious freedom. There are those who are saying, as George Takei did, that the Christians are going to stand behind "the shroud of religious freedom." He said, " But they do not have the freedom to impose their religious values on to others. I've heard some of the people, uh, expressing their comments on the, uh, Supreme Court ruling, and they're entitled to that. But they are not entitled to impose their will on everybody."
Christians have never forced their religion on others, as that's not what Christianity is. Christianity is a choice. The Constitution, the First Amendment, the Establishment Clause, protects their right to choose any religion they want. They can also choose no religion. So no Christian forced anything on anyone. Christians just mind their own business and go about praying. When they wanted to make marriage between a man and a woman, they went through the legal process. The laws were applied equally to everyone. Some states chose to make gay marriage legal, while others chose not to. This is called Federalism.
What's also wrong with statements like Takei's is that, while they say we can't force our beliefs on them (which we are not and never did), it's okay for them to force their beliefs on Christians. For example, I am minding my own business as a Christian baking cakes. I am not forcing you to be a Christian in any way. But you come into my store and want me to bake a cake for your wedding. I say, "I'm sorry, it's against my religious beliefs." Instead of going someplace else, they sue me. That's the end of my business.
The baker did not stop the wedding. Doesn't matter. The baker did not prevent the couple from being in love. Doesn't matter. But because the Christian cake maker refused to make a cake for this couple's wedding, they have to close shop. The gay guys get to choose what cake shop they go to, but the cake shop owner does not get to choose.
Progressives fail to see the hypocrisy here. Why is this not a civil rights violation but laws banning gay marriage are? This sort of thing tramples all over the Constitution, and it's the kind of thing that concerns me. Personally, I would just bake the cake and take the money, but if someone chooses not to that's their business. They just fought for gay liberties, but now there are some who want to take away religious liberties. There is something not right about this. The problem is that those who own businesses have lives and don't have time to be activists, however...
7 Waking up the sleeping giant. There are 240,000,000 Christians in the United States, and many of them now have their eyes wide open. Look folks, this is a large lobbying force. Remember what happened on December 6, 1941 after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. Isoroku Yamamoto, who planned the attack, is noted as saying: "I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible resolve." As it turned out, he was right, and the Japanese did wake up the sleeping giant.
Anyway...
Conclusion. Go and celebrate the fact that more liberties have been granted. Go and celebrate if you have an agenda you want to force on the rest of us, because the Supreme Court has just cleared the path. If what you want is legal in some states, then it must be legal in yours too or you have a civil rights case on your hands. Good luck! And, by the way, these are just my observations; these are just things I'm hearing as I peruse Facebook and the blogosphere. I contend here that I am staying neutral on this issue.
Look, this is not my opinion here, it's what I've heard. It's not my opinion that they will come after churches, and maybe even ultimately make it so seven judges can get married. You see, this is not my opinion, it's a fait accompli.
1. Liberties. I have trouble being upset with any ruling that grants more people more liberties. The 1% of Americans (that's 50% of the gay population) that yearned to change the Constitution to allow gay marriage across the nation now can get married. So yay!
2. How it was done. The court decided it was a civil rights violation, and they used Section 1 of the Fourteen Amendment to justify its argument, which reads: Amendment XIV 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.
Personally, I find this stunning. If you read the Constitution, it says nothing about gay marriage. It does, however, recognize the natural right to enter into a contract. Still, it does not define contract. So, based on the 10th amendment, this decision was left to the states to decide. Prior to the ruling, 36 states defined marriage as between two people, while the rest defined it as between a man and a woman. This process was completely constitutional.
Now, enter Amendment XIV Section 1, which essentially states that the laws of a state shall be applied equally to every person in that state. So, in the states that banned gay marriage, no man could marry any man, and no woman could marry any woman. This was not a violation of civil rights so long as a state didn't say this man can marry this man, but this man cannot marry that man.
Here the Supreme Court, or five men in robes, decide that if gay marriage is legal in 36 states, then the fact that it is illegal in the rest of the states is a violation of the civil rights of gay people in those states. This is an absolute violation of Federalism.
So, that gay people can marry is fine, it's just how it was done that I have a problem with. Which segues us to...
3. The slippery slope. Or, in other words, the unintended consequences. There have been people in this country who have been on an all out onslaught of the second amendment right to bear arms. Some states have made laws banning people from carrying weapons, while others have laws allowing people to carry weapons. According to Allen West, "YEEhaw! This side-effect of the gay marriage ruling will make liberals EXPLODE," we all have a civil right to carry guns.
Some believe it will lead to polygamy. Now that marriage has been redefined by the left, if some man came along and says he wants to marry five women, there is no way we can tell him no. Before marriage had a specific definition, and now there is no definition. Marriage is now an open ended word. It can mean whatever you want it to mean, so long as you have, as Justice Kennedy said, what you need to have "self esteem and dignity." I mean, that sort of leaves the definition WIDE open. Marriage can now be whatever you want. Hey, maybe you can even have two robots marry like they did in Japan.
And then there are some who believe liberals are going to come after religion. I discuss that slippery slope below. Still, my liberal friends believe the slippery slope theory is poppycock. I don't know where they get their confidence from. They say we are panicking for no reason. But there is reason. It's right there in the Kennedy ruling: there is no way out now for those who oppose this. It's about fairness. Marriage was something that some people could do and others could not, and that's not fair. This gay marriage debate was not about gays, it was about marriage. So if you have a priest refuse to marry a gay couple, that's not fair. So you bet it will come to that at some point, if it hasn't happened already. More on this below.
One more thing about slippery slopes. Some say I'm being paranoid when I speak of slippery slopes. "Oh, it can't happen," they say. "I'm not worried about slippery slopes," they say. Just because your'e paranoid does not mean you are wrong. But I'm not paranoid in this instance. It's knowledge. You obtain such knowledge by studying history, keeping up with true events, and through experience.
4. Unintended Consequences. Look, folks, happy or not, this ruling is a violation of Federalism. Federalism means that each state can make it's own laws regarding anything not mentioned in the Constitution. So the ruling essentially makes many other laws null and void. For instance, if it is unconstitutional for two gay men to get married, then how can it be unconstitutional for two Christian boys to pray in school?
5. The Power of the Courts. The purpose of courts is to make sure the law is followed. They are not supposed to make rulings based on politics, they are supposed to make rulings based on the law. I fear that what they did was make the Constitution irrelevant, which is exactly what the left wants. As Justice Antonio Scalia said in his dissent, there was a debate going on in this country, and many were deciding in favor of gay marriage. So they were winning. Now the debate is shut down. Many have had something forced on them that they are not ready to accept. Once again the Supreme Court has made a decision that will divide this nation much the way Rowe -v- Wade did.
6. Will religion go extinct. We know that many progressives want to see religion go away, and this ruling may just cause that to happen. While judges now have to marry people of the same sex, priests and pastors consider doing so a violation of their religious freedom. I can see a law being passed by some future president that states that a church will lose their tax exempt status if they refuse to marry same sex couples. If this happens, it will mean the end of religion as we know it. Many churches will go bankrupt.
My liberal friends say it won't come to this. But even so, Justice Kennedy set the stage for it when he said that if you are a deeply religious person, a priest or a pastor of a church, you're free to dissent, meaning you're free to tell people you disagree. But you are not free to act on it. In other words, "You can't deny the constitutional right we just ordained. You can argue against it, you can say you don't like it, and you'll be okay. But you cannot practice that. You can not!" In other words, "If two gay Catholics want you to marry them, you cannot deny them that right. If you do, there might be a lawsuit." It could be that this has happened already.
When it does, if it does, it will be the end of the Catholic Church, and that will be a bonus to the left.
7. John Roberts dissenting opinion. "If you are among the many Americans -- of whatever sexual orientation -- who favor expanding same-sex marriage, by all means celebrate today's decision. Celebrate the achievement of a desired goal. Celebrate the opportunity for a new expression of commitment to a partner. Celebrate the availability of new benefits. But do not celebrate the Constitution. It had nothing to do with it." He also said, "Five lawyers have closed the debate and enacted their own vision of marriage as a matter of constitutional law." He's right.
8. Religious freedom. There are those who are saying, as George Takei did, that the Christians are going to stand behind "the shroud of religious freedom." He said, " But they do not have the freedom to impose their religious values on to others. I've heard some of the people, uh, expressing their comments on the, uh, Supreme Court ruling, and they're entitled to that. But they are not entitled to impose their will on everybody."
Christians have never forced their religion on others, as that's not what Christianity is. Christianity is a choice. The Constitution, the First Amendment, the Establishment Clause, protects their right to choose any religion they want. They can also choose no religion. So no Christian forced anything on anyone. Christians just mind their own business and go about praying. When they wanted to make marriage between a man and a woman, they went through the legal process. The laws were applied equally to everyone. Some states chose to make gay marriage legal, while others chose not to. This is called Federalism.
What's also wrong with statements like Takei's is that, while they say we can't force our beliefs on them (which we are not and never did), it's okay for them to force their beliefs on Christians. For example, I am minding my own business as a Christian baking cakes. I am not forcing you to be a Christian in any way. But you come into my store and want me to bake a cake for your wedding. I say, "I'm sorry, it's against my religious beliefs." Instead of going someplace else, they sue me. That's the end of my business.
The baker did not stop the wedding. Doesn't matter. The baker did not prevent the couple from being in love. Doesn't matter. But because the Christian cake maker refused to make a cake for this couple's wedding, they have to close shop. The gay guys get to choose what cake shop they go to, but the cake shop owner does not get to choose.
Progressives fail to see the hypocrisy here. Why is this not a civil rights violation but laws banning gay marriage are? This sort of thing tramples all over the Constitution, and it's the kind of thing that concerns me. Personally, I would just bake the cake and take the money, but if someone chooses not to that's their business. They just fought for gay liberties, but now there are some who want to take away religious liberties. There is something not right about this. The problem is that those who own businesses have lives and don't have time to be activists, however...
7 Waking up the sleeping giant. There are 240,000,000 Christians in the United States, and many of them now have their eyes wide open. Look folks, this is a large lobbying force. Remember what happened on December 6, 1941 after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. Isoroku Yamamoto, who planned the attack, is noted as saying: "I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible resolve." As it turned out, he was right, and the Japanese did wake up the sleeping giant.
Anyway...
Conclusion. Go and celebrate the fact that more liberties have been granted. Go and celebrate if you have an agenda you want to force on the rest of us, because the Supreme Court has just cleared the path. If what you want is legal in some states, then it must be legal in yours too or you have a civil rights case on your hands. Good luck! And, by the way, these are just my observations; these are just things I'm hearing as I peruse Facebook and the blogosphere. I contend here that I am staying neutral on this issue.
Look, this is not my opinion here, it's what I've heard. It's not my opinion that they will come after churches, and maybe even ultimately make it so seven judges can get married. You see, this is not my opinion, it's a fait accompli.
Friday, October 10, 2014
A big win for gay marriage advocates
 |
| By Mike Thompson, Detroit Free Press |
By deciding not to hear these cases, the Supreme Court has, and duly so, decided to honor the tenth amendment which states that any issues not covered in the U.S. Constitution are left to the states, to the people, to decide. In this way, the Supreme Court is in essence saying that the Federal Government has no Constitutional claim to rule gay marriage.
What this ruling means is that states can rule on gay marriage however they want, and it's no longer going to require a state by state vote. When state officials want to make gay marriage legal, all they have to do now is have a majority, pass a law, and have their governor sign it. No longer will it require a majority of voters voting yes for it to pass.
To me, as a Constitutional loving American, this only makes sense. If the Supreme Court had ruled in this way (or, again, not ruled), if the Court had announced in 1972 that it would not rule on Rowe-v-Wade, state rulings on the issue would have stood. Abortion would have been legal in some states and illegal in others.
Surely I am against any abortion, and consider it to be murder of innocent children. However, the issue is not covered in the Constitution, and therefore it only makes sense that it be left to the states to decide. The same is true of gay or same sex marriage. Lacking an amendment, the issue should be left to the states to decide.
Chris Cillizza at the Washington Post is rightfully giddy about this "non ruling," as she said: "Supreme Court confirms what should be already known: The fight over gay marriage is over."
I wouldn't say that it is over, but this surely is good news for both gay marriage advocates and liberty.
According to Politico, the Justices turned down petitions challenging appellate decisions that overturned same-sex marriage bans in Indiana, Oklahoma, Utah, Virginia and Wisconsin.
The ruling clears the way for same sex marriage in five states, and could clear the way in six other states based on appeals court rulings already handed down. While the practice is currently legal in 19 states, this could soon become 30, according to Politico.
I have said on this blog before that I agree with Ron Pal when he said, in effect, that "No majority should be able to vote away the rights of the minority."
While many states had referendums where the majority in those states opposed gay marriage, those referendums may now be challenged by lawmakers. This is a perfect example of how the U.S. Constitution protects the minority from the majority.
You'll rarely ever hear me agreeing with Justice Ruth Ginsburg, although I can't deny that I do agree with her in this case as she said, "All three federal appeals courts to take it up have agreed that it is unconstitutional for states to prohibit same-sex marriage."
What she was essentially saying was that because there was no lower court ruling disagreeing with those three, they punted the issue back to the lower courts. This means that the lower court rulings stand. This means that gay marriage is now the law of the land; that rulings against gay marriage are unconstitutional.
See my post Seven Myths About Gay Marriage.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)