Can the Gay Marriage Decision Be Reversed
The Supreme Court of the United States has a history of unjust, unconstitutional or political decisions. It has been the tool liberals have used for accomplishing their agenda, which cannot pass either through direct vote or legislation for most of this century. The Gay marriage decision exemplifies liberalism's use of the courts to advance its unpopular agenda. Evey time Gay marriage has been put to a vote (as recently as 2014) even the most liberal states have rejected it. The recent OBERGEFELL ET AL. v. HODGES, DIRECTOR, OHIO
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, ET Al., upheld the legality of same sex marriage in all 50 states and US territories. The decision created "a right to dignity" protected by the 14th Amendement, and nullified the first, ninth and tenth amendments.
The decision put the courts flaws on display when it ruled that marriage is a human right.
The decision put the courts flaws on display when it ruled that marriage is a human right. Yet the way marriages are formed belies that argument. For a couple to get married they must receive a license from the state. Rights are not licensed. No one has to have state permission to exercise their rights.The court argued that marriage is a human right because of four specious reasons:
Legislature determine what is legally allowed not black robed justices. When a society basis its morality on the determination of an elite class it always results in the abuse and tyranny of those who hold differing views. The Constitution does provide checks on the courts misuse of power, but in the twentieth century we have not followed them. One is the process of nullification which some states are all ready asserting:
The Ninth and Tenth Amendments to the Constitution assigns rights to the states or to the people not defined in the Constitution. Since domestic relations are not defined in the Constitution they are the rights of the State. Constitutional authorities agree that states can nullify supreme court decision that usurp their authority. Several states are asserting their right to ignore this decision. It is yet to be seen whether nullification will stand. Although nullification may be appropriate for most state, the ruling would still apply to three states named in the decision.
The danger of this decision is the judicial abuse it represents. It is essential that we bring the judiciary under the boundaries the Constitution. I have heard many pundits use the phrase that the court is the highest authority in the land. That is not the case, the current structure of the court, life appointed judges who have unlimited authority, is no where defined in the Constitution. Article 3 Section one says only that the "Congress ordains and established the Court." The Congress has authority to change the structure of the court or limit its authority when it gets out of control. The Supreme Court is subordinate to the Congress in both its jurisdiction and its decisions. The Supreme court had no right to overturn the Defense of Marriage Act as the act was designed to limit the jurisdiction of the court. Since Connecticut vs Griswold the court has attempted to enforce decisions it has no authority to enforce. The Congress should pass legislation limiting the courts jurisdiction. Since the Article gives Congress this authority explicitly, it would not be subject to Presidential veto.
The Supreme Courts abuse of it's authority is an example of expanding federal tyranny and abuse of power. Article Five of the Constitution gives the states acting in concert the authority to pass amendments to the Constitution. A movement spearheaded by former constitutional lawyer and Justice Department chief of staff, Mark Levin, to call a Convention of the States is gaining momentum. Levin points out in his book THE LIBERTY AMENDMENTS that Article Five does not permit a replacement Constitution to be created, but the provision is a means for the States and the people to reign in a tyrannical federal government. Since the issue of gay marriage has never survived a vote of the people and since few legislatures have permitted it, it seems clear that the Court has subjugated the will of the people to its enlightened opinion. This is precisely the kind of elitism that a Convention of the States working under the boundaries of Article Five is designed to prevent.
It seems to me the only way to reverse the gay marriage decision is to establish boundaries on a court that is now clearly rogue.
It seems to me the only way to reverse the gay marriage decision is to establish boundaries on a court that is now clearly rogue. Neither house of Congress will pass an amendment or legislation to reign in the Court. Responsible citizens who believe in liberty must align with the Convention of the States. This movement has passed a resolution for a convention is several states and is very near the require number to mandate the Speaker of the House to call a convention. This to me seems to be the most appropriate way to reassert liberty and constitutional authority in this county. Write your legislature today and ask them to pass the convention of the states legislation that is being presented in your legislature. Your liberty depends on it.
The decision put the courts flaws on display when it ruled that marriage is a human right.
The decision put the courts flaws on display when it ruled that marriage is a human right. Yet the way marriages are formed belies that argument. For a couple to get married they must receive a license from the state. Rights are not licensed. No one has to have state permission to exercise their rights.The court argued that marriage is a human right because of four specious reasons:
1. The court argued that the law recognized a free choice to marry. The fact that marriage is a relationship that must be licensed demonstrates marriage is not a choice, but a legal status granted by the state. In most communities starting a business is not something anyone can do it requires licensed and permits. Marriage requires a state approved officiant and a license. Therefore it is not a right. Rights are not licensed.
2. The court argued based on Griswold vs.. Connecticut that any two people have the right to intimacy. This judgment equates intimacy with intercourse. By this argument any sexual union should be allowed. Prostitution despite it's public health dangers is a right. Can a parent have an intimate relationship with a child with out sexual union or marriage, if they cannot, then incest is a basic right.
3. The court argued that the right to, marry among same-sex individuals protected their children. "Without the recognition, stability, and predictability marriage offers, children suffer the stigma of knowing their families are somehow lesser. They also suffer the significant material costs of being raised by unmarried parents, relegated to a more difficult and uncertain family life. The marriage laws at issue thus harm and humiliate the children of same-sex couples. "Again if this rationality can be applied to the children of same sex couples it can be applied to the children of any union. If we have to recognize marriage because parental relationship stigmatize the children, then what about children who are stigmatized by being born of polygamy or incest. The purpose of the law is not to protect from humiliation but from harm.
4. Since marriage is the key to social order, than it is demeaning to same sex couple to deny the privilege to same sex couple. It denies gays basic rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. This is obviously false. Homosexuals have argued that marital rights were necessary to protect their rights to live together, own property, make decision, and take care of each other. Yet under existing law gays can adopt children, sign leases, go into business, live together, buy homes, cars, insurance or other property together. Gays are fully assimilated in the American society. Employers can not discriminate against them. With the completion of a medical proxy, which merely requires a signature and two witnesses, a same sex couple can have mutual rights for making health care and end of life decision for a partner.As typical is so many Supreme Court decision the majority justices appoint themselves as arbiters of morality, because they believe that social change and acceptance shows the enlightenment of its practitioners. They basically believe that contemporary practice and insight is more enlightened than established human tradition and Judeo-Christian moratlity. "The history of marriage is one of both continuity and change. Changes, such as the decline of arranged marriages and the abandonment of the law of coverture, have worked deep transformations in the structure of marriage, affecting aspects of marriage once viewed as essential. These new insights have strengthened, not weakened, the institution. Changed understandings of marriage are characteristic of a Nation where new dimensions of freedom become apparent to new generations." The justices argued that their enlightened progressive view gave them the right to be the arbiters of social morality. They actually placed themselves above the law. The Constitution does not give them this authority.
Legislature determine what is legally allowed not black robed justices. When a society basis its morality on the determination of an elite class it always results in the abuse and tyranny of those who hold differing views. The Constitution does provide checks on the courts misuse of power, but in the twentieth century we have not followed them. One is the process of nullification which some states are all ready asserting:
The Ninth and Tenth Amendments to the Constitution assigns rights to the states or to the people not defined in the Constitution. Since domestic relations are not defined in the Constitution they are the rights of the State. Constitutional authorities agree that states can nullify supreme court decision that usurp their authority. Several states are asserting their right to ignore this decision. It is yet to be seen whether nullification will stand. Although nullification may be appropriate for most state, the ruling would still apply to three states named in the decision.
The danger of this decision is the judicial abuse it represents. It is essential that we bring the judiciary under the boundaries the Constitution. I have heard many pundits use the phrase that the court is the highest authority in the land. That is not the case, the current structure of the court, life appointed judges who have unlimited authority, is no where defined in the Constitution. Article 3 Section one says only that the "Congress ordains and established the Court." The Congress has authority to change the structure of the court or limit its authority when it gets out of control. The Supreme Court is subordinate to the Congress in both its jurisdiction and its decisions. The Supreme court had no right to overturn the Defense of Marriage Act as the act was designed to limit the jurisdiction of the court. Since Connecticut vs Griswold the court has attempted to enforce decisions it has no authority to enforce. The Congress should pass legislation limiting the courts jurisdiction. Since the Article gives Congress this authority explicitly, it would not be subject to Presidential veto.
The Supreme Courts abuse of it's authority is an example of expanding federal tyranny and abuse of power. Article Five of the Constitution gives the states acting in concert the authority to pass amendments to the Constitution. A movement spearheaded by former constitutional lawyer and Justice Department chief of staff, Mark Levin, to call a Convention of the States is gaining momentum. Levin points out in his book THE LIBERTY AMENDMENTS that Article Five does not permit a replacement Constitution to be created, but the provision is a means for the States and the people to reign in a tyrannical federal government. Since the issue of gay marriage has never survived a vote of the people and since few legislatures have permitted it, it seems clear that the Court has subjugated the will of the people to its enlightened opinion. This is precisely the kind of elitism that a Convention of the States working under the boundaries of Article Five is designed to prevent.
It seems to me the only way to reverse the gay marriage decision is to establish boundaries on a court that is now clearly rogue.
It seems to me the only way to reverse the gay marriage decision is to establish boundaries on a court that is now clearly rogue. Neither house of Congress will pass an amendment or legislation to reign in the Court. Responsible citizens who believe in liberty must align with the Convention of the States. This movement has passed a resolution for a convention is several states and is very near the require number to mandate the Speaker of the House to call a convention. This to me seems to be the most appropriate way to reassert liberty and constitutional authority in this county. Write your legislature today and ask them to pass the convention of the states legislation that is being presented in your legislature. Your liberty depends on it.
Comments
Post a Comment