Posted on 12/27/2003 3:08:49 PM PST by Federalist 78
In Massachusetts, historic cradle of American liberties, the state Supreme Court has become the contemporary incubator of libertines, decreeing that the Legislature, like it or not, must draft a law to legitimize homosexual coupling.
In Washington, DC, just a few weeks before, the U.S. Supreme Court had set the predicate for the Bay State's perversion of marriage when it decreed that states may not criminalize private and consensual adult homosexual acts.
Such radical departure from the norms of society has provoked an overriding majority of Americans to demand a constitutional amendment or something to undo what the people see as unwarranted and dangerous mischief by a willful gang of sanctimonious judges Hell bent to turn the culture upside down and inside out.
The President and most Republicans in Congress, being ardent heterosexuals and astute politicians, have threatened to push for Constitutional change and affirm unequivocally that marriage is exclusively for a man and a woman. That course of action, however, is no snap to accomplish.
Two-thirds of the House and Senate must agree on the proposed amendment before submitting it to the 50 states, 38 of which must approve the change before it becomes the supreme law of the land.
There is a faster way to neutralize the black-robed troublemakers: Articulate and use a quaint concept called "Popular Sovereignty," serially postulated by philosophers Thomas Hobbes, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, and, most importantly, John Locke, and adopted enthusiastically by American colonists.
Popular Sovereignty is the notion, in Thomas Jefferson's words, that the mass of mankind was not born "with saddles on their back, nor a favored few [born] booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately, by the grace of God." (The grace-of-God phrase is a swat at the supreme arrogance of monarchy, a boast still found on British coins [Dei gratia, rex, or, if the ruler is a queen, regina.].)
To the contrary, colonial Americans demanded that any government (whether a republic or a monarchy or any other concoction) must recognize that it may rule only with the authority and at the pleasure of the people.
Even residents of tiny, unsophisticated Pittsfield, Massachusetts, expressed that simple idea powerfully in a resolution they passed in May 1776. "The people are the fountain of power," they proclaimed.
"But precisely because men are not so foolish as to risk being devoured by lions, they will not delegate, and the government therefore will not receive [in Locke's words] an 'absolute arbitrary power,' " wrote Georgetown Professor Walter Berns (Taking The Constitution Seriously, Simon and Schuster, 1987).
"The people will want to put bounds or limits to the powers they hand over." That is, the people will establish a constitution that determines, defines and delineates the specific powers and trust they will extend to the lions.
How would the people know if the trust they had given their rulers had been broken, thus allowing the people to rebel within the framework of a constitution?
Locke's words on that subject were quite readily understood and endorsed by the colonists: When rulers ignore settled law in favor of "inconstant, incertain, unknown, and arbitrary government," then the point of rebellion is reached.
Clearly, when it comes to society's understanding of what constitutes marriage today, settled law is severely being ignored in favor of the uncertain, the unknown and the arbitrary. Even devotees of the homosexual agenda would be hard pressed to disagree with this matter-of-fact assessment.
The people's right to rebel within the framework of the U.S. Constitution is tacitly recognized by every member of Congress, for it is the legislative branch, not the judicial and executive, which directly feels the biennial exercise of Popular Sovereignty (called "elections"). If Congress does not act swiftly and decisively on a major issue, Popular Sovereignty will remove unpopular incumbents and replace them appropriately.
Because of John Locke's influence on the drafting of the U.S. Constitution (although he had died 80 years earlier), Congress is "first among equals."
The document's very drafting sequence indicates this priority, for Article I deals with the legislative branch (Articles II and III, with the executive and judicial branches, respectively).
--While the judiciary cannot control Congress, Congress certainly can control the judiciary. In Article 1, Section 8, Congress has the power to create (thus, the implicit power to eliminate) any federal court beneath the Supreme Court. That power is reiterated in Article 3, Section 1. Congress, it would seem, also may remove lower federal judges who subvert Popular Sovereignty by abolishing the judge's court. The Constitution says a judge may hold office during "good behavior" and that his compensation shall not be diminished during "continuance in office." If there's no office to hold, a judge will be back in private practice or teaching at Harvard Law.
--While the Supreme Court cannot control Congress, Congress certainly can control the Supreme Court by denying it the right to hear certain appeals. (Article III, Section 2: ". . . the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make" [emphasis added].)
If it wishes to expedite and underscore its commitment to Popular Sovereignty and fire a massive shot across the bow of unjust and unjustifiable judges, Congress as soon as possible should convene, draft a bill (not a constitutional amendment), pass it, and submit the legislation at once to the President for what likely would be an immediate signature.
Legislation must contain unmistakable language that 1) marriage and any other permanent, two-person sexual union throughout the United States shall be recognized at all levels of government only if the marriage or union is between a biological, natural-born man and a biological, natural-born woman, and 2) the Supreme Court and, arguably, the entire congressionally constituted judiciary may not review the law.
Meantime, in anticipation of the predictable howls by Laurence Tribe, The New York Times, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Michael Jackson, Rosie O'Donnell, San Francisco's Board of Supervisors, et alia, White House speechwriters should be ready with an appropriate soundbite or two for President Bush's news conference.
Perhaps he could say something like, "How many divisions does the Supreme Court have?" and, "I am referring all questions to my favorite lawyer, John Locke, who is out of town and not expected back anytime soon."
Mike Thompson is author of Preying In School: How Homosexuals Recruit Your Kids, available from Xulon Press, 1-866-909-2665.
More on Preying in School: The world's first referendum on homosexuality was barely 25 years ago, in sunny Miami-Dade County, where in 1977 Florida's official orange-juice saleswoman (and popular country/gospel singer) Anita Bryant led the voters in a thumping repeal of "gay rights" legislation.
At Anita's side as chief political strategist, debater and advertising man was Mike Thompson, a powerful figure in Republican and conservative politics since the mid-1960s.
Now Thompson has packaged a blockbuster and highly readable book on how homosexual activists have opened a new front in their war to demand society's full approval.
"In the midst of a gay-embracing frenzy by bipartisan politicians, the news media, the entertainment world, academia and the other usual suspects," writes Thompson, "there are nevertheless tens of millions of Americans (the familiar Silent Majority) who don't embrace homosexuality. Indeed, they consider homosexuality to be perverse and adverse personal behavior.
"What most of these parents don't realize is that in addition to naïve educators, there are powerful forces inside their children's public schools who skillfully scheme to intimidate heterosexual students into silence or, worse, recruit them into homosexuality itself."
Thompson then lays out factually the strategies and gross propaganda materials employed nationwide by GLSEN, the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network, to penetrate classrooms, amazingly, from kindergarten to college level. (GLSEN also organizes after-school sex clubs [Gay-Straight Alliances] that meet on campus to facilitate "safe dating.")
Quoting extensively from the GLSEN-approved study list of special "children's" literature, the author reveals that much of the group's material, if depicted in a movie, would be considered X-rated, obscene and actually constitute child pornography.
Thompson also cites various medical, scientific and criminal-justice sources to debunk a litany of homosexual claims regarding their lives and alleged danger from heterosexuals.
Particularly compelling is a chapter dealing with the need for full disclosure, in which Thompson masterfully compiles chilling numbers on the longevity of homosexuals and the heavy burden of disease, illness and substance abuse inherent in their choosing "a deathstyle, not a lifestyle."
Thompson's multifaceted solution to driving homosexual propaganda out of public schools is both solid and creative, and boils down to this: Parents must demand that schools fight homosexual behavior just as vigorously as they fight alcohol, drugs, reckless driving and other life-threats to our children.
Insist that Congress remove federal judical jurisdicton from Defense of Marriage Act /Public Law No: 104-199, 342-67 & 85-14 w/Clinton signature and allow each state to choose, or abstain from sodomy.
Article 3, Section 2, Clause 2 In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.
Article III, Section 2 - The Washington Times: Editorials/OP-ED In the 107th Congress (2001-2002), Congress used the authority of Article III, Section 2, clause 2 on 12 occasions to limit the jurisdiction of the federal courts.
Sen. Thomas A. Daschle, South Dakota Democrat, used the exception authority of Article III, 2.2 in order to cut some timber in South Dakota.
Reining In the Court - The New American - July 28, 2003 By simple majority vote, Congress could pass an act denying federal jurisdiction over social issues of any kind, such as abortion, pornography, and homosexuality. This would leave the state legislatures free to enact (or, in most cases, re-enact) laws on those matters reflecting the moral consensus of their constituents. This would leave the well-funded leftist network of legal agitators - the ACLU, et al. - without effective recourse, since they would have no access to their longtime allies in the federal judiciary. Rather than use the judicial system as a detour around representative government, the cultural left would have to contend, on equal terms, in state legislatures.
James Madison, His Legacy: Federalist Papers (FEDERALIST No. 51)
But it is not possible to give to each department an equal power of self-defense. In republican government, the legislative authority necessarily predominates
There is no way it would be 'repealed'. A constiutional amendment can only be repealed by another constitutional amendment, and while opinion my shift more in favor, there will never be enough support for a constitutional amendment to allow gay marriages.
A recent NY Times poll showed, to the Editorial Board's chagrin, that well OVER half of Americans rejected the idea of homosexual marriage. A large majority also expressed opposition to homosexuality as a lifestyle. This was a total shock to the Old Grey Lady which has been trying mightily to change public opinion in this regard.
If now, after several years of homosexuals on tv shows, in the movies and the tabloids, Americans are STILL not accepting of the lifestyle, I don't think that time will ever come. In fact, the more often homosexuals are portrayed in the media, the less average Americans are accepting of them.
Comparing antisemitism and homosexuality will only tend to strengthen the younger generations view of homosexuality as a civil rights vs. bigotry issue.
The problem with this argument is that it is akin to telling women not to fight back when someone is trying to rape them, since it's inevitable. If there are no moral absolutes, and the "progression" of societal change is inevitable (social Darwinism), then it is not only futile but wrong to try to stop change. In fact, might as well speed it up and bring on the pedophiles.
Actually, it is the duty of everyone who can distinguish right from wrong to defend what is right and fight what is wrong, not to cave in and accept rape as inevitable.
38 states already have defense of marriage laws, and the big polls are showing overwhelming support for the Federal Marriage Amendment.
Our founders put sodomizers to death, and they obviously didn't even imagine that sodomizers would try to legitimize something like marriage between themselves and fight legitimate parents for custody of their children. Our founders would be rallying around this Amendment as we are.
AEI - Publications (written before the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act decision of Dec 03, where even J.Kennedy was correct)
Beneath the Supreme Court's many astounding decisions in its 2002-2003 term, and the shifting judicial coalitions that produced those results, runs a unifying basso continuo: Constitutional law, in the sense of judicial decisions that are guided--at least in aspiration--by the text, structure, and logic of the written Constitution, is dead. It has been replaced, often as a matter of explicit doctrine, with subjective judicial impressions of popular sentiment or political utility. Federalist Outlook, The Term the Constitution Died, Michael S. Greve,Friday, July 25, 2003
There is nothing wrong with the U.S. Constitution and nearly everything wrong with the federal judicary. Congress has the cure. They can amputate by removing jurisdiction, or use the guillotine and impeach/remove.
Try reading some history with "The Pink Swastika" by Scott Lively and Kevin Abrams. Much detail and contemperanous documentation of the intimate connection between homosexuality and the Nazis themselves and their philosophy.
It might be advisable to inform yourself before defending homosexual marriage any more.
Only time will tell but, based upon my observations of todays teens and young adults, 90% of them view homosexuality as being normal and acceptable. Within a couple of generations they will be the majority. That majority coupled with homosexuals framing the debate of non-traditional marriage as a civil rights issue will provide strong support for the repeal of any Constitutional Amendment concerning marriage.
Secondly, the overwhelming majority of young folks are woefully ill informed no matter the issue. It is high time that this issue is openly debated and all possible ramifications to liberalizing, read redefining, marriage be placed on the table for one and all to ponder upon.
Thirdly, young people, as a rule, don't vote. Whether that is good or bad is up to the individual's to decide but it is none the less true.
Am I against the Gay Lobby because, as they would say, I am a hater, a Nazi, an admirer of Hitler? This is unlikely, because my wife was born in the Lida, Poland ghetto, and Nazis murdered her family. Indeed, if I oppose the Gay Lobby, it is precisely because I am deathly afraid of Hitler, and I believe that the Gay Lobby is one of those groups that will play propaganda songs until society falls asleep, and then seize power and destroy people like me. The Gay Lobby, as I see it, is not looking for Gay Rights, they are looking to seize power, like other secular radical groups. Napoleon was one of the most extreme fighters against the French monarchy until he came to power and declared himself Emperor. Rabbi David Eidensohn
UOR protests Reform clergy okay of 'Gay marriage'
April 2, 2000— The Union of Orthodox Rabbis of the United States and Canada (UOR) issued a statement today condemning the latest move by the Reform movement in the United States authorizing "Gay marriages" by Reform clergy.
Speaking for the UOR, Rabbi Yehuda Levin said: "This latest move by the Central Conference of American (Reform) Rabbis (CCAR) proves once again that Reform Judaism is not Judaism at all – it is nothing more than a pathetic parody of Judaism that makes a mockery of the sacrifices of our fathers and grandfathers, who gave their lives AL KIDDUSH HASHEM [in sanctification of His name].
"The Reform clergy does not teach Judaism – what they preach is a trendy version of the latest politically-correct new-age radicalism.
"The Reform clergy does not honor G-D. They openly defy his clearly-expressed commandments, as stated in the Holy Torah (Five Books of Moses). They pervert His Word by twisting His Law to mean the very opposite of what was intended.
"They are arrogant and dishonest. They are rebels against G-D and His people.
"They mislead their flock, who include many decent and well-meaning Jews seeking to find meaning in Judaism. Instead, they are fed a diet of fraudulent liberal hokum.
"If they retain any respect at all for their religious ancestors, they should stop insulting their holy memory by calling this strange new religion 'Judaism' and bringing shame and disrespect, a CHILLUL HASHEM [profanation of His name] , upon G-D's holy people.
"By issuing this statement, we publicly disassociate ourselves from this outrage.
"—May G-D have mercy on the remnant of His people."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.