It would seem that we are getting closer to being ruled and not governed.
Here is my rebuttal to the ruling that Prop. 8 is unconstitutional.
The United States Constitution has been in effect for over 220 years; the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified over 140 years ago. And after all that time, it has just NOW been discovered that they mandate same-sex "marriage" be treated as equal to true marriage? This is every bit as fraudulent as the claim that the Eighth Amendment ban on "cruel and unusual punishments" expressly prohibits capital punishment.
The proponents of same-sex "marriage" were never able to win in the arena of ideas; time and again, when they brought this notion to the general public, they were repudiated. And so they decided to reject the American concept that the people are ultimately the best arbiters of what is right and wrong for society and instead embrace the old royalist notion that the elite know best and should therefore be able to dictate and impose their ideas and morals upon the rest of society. And so, same-sex "marriage" is not established by convincing the people of the rightness of the cause; instead, it is simply imposed by judicial fiat.
Had Proposition 8 been defeated by the California electorate, I personally would have been repulsed by the outcome but, because of my belief in the system of American self-governance, I would have had no choice but to accept the will of the people, despite my personal disagreement. But I have no reason whatsoever to respect the decision of a corrupt elitist to impose same-sex "marriage" upon society by judicial fiat. The difference between winning in the arena of ideas versus winning by a court case is comparable to the difference between someone winning a contest because he is better than his opponent versus winning because he bribed the judge.
The Constitution was never designed to be a means of granting equality to that which is not accepted as equal by the public at large. At the time the Constitution was written, Blacks were not viewed as equal to Whites and women were not viewed as equal to men. It was the arena of ideas, not the decrees of the elite, that changed these circumstances. The abolition of slavery and the right of nonwhites and women to vote were not established by some judicial ruling but by constitutional amendments, and these changes only became possible because the viewpoint of the American people in general changed.
Changes in the Constitution are not always necessary to effect change in society. Like slavery and female subservience, child labor was long considered normal and acceptable, not only in America but worldwide and throughout history. Through the arena of ideas, the attitude of the American people towards child labor changed and, through their democratically elected representatives, new laws were passed to reflect those new viewpoints. Same-sex "marriage" falls into this latter category. As long as society in general does not view same-sex relationships as worthy of the same legal recognition and treatment as true marriage, it is a gross perversion of the constitutional process to impose the minority viewpoint upon the majority. If and when society changes its mind, the law can be rewritten through the constitutionally prescribed manner to reflect that change. And if "sexual orientation" is to be raised to the same constitutional level as race and gender, it should be done so by constitutional amendment, not through the decree of some elitist judge in total disregard for the true intent of the Constitution.
---Jay Peterson
The ruling class
There is 1 reply to this message
