Posted on 05/19/2008 5:29:27 AM PDT by IrishMike
It is the essence of democracy that people should be able to decide the moral rules that govern the nature of a community. If people don't have that power, then they are living under an autocracy.
True, this majority rule is not unlimited. It is limited by what the government has the power to do. Consequently the majority cannot, in general, vote to seize the homes and accumulated savings of rich people. Leaving aside exceptional cases, government cannot mandate how parents how should raise their children. These kinds of power lie outside the scope of government in a free society.
Majority rule is also circumscribed by individual rights. But these are the rights clearly specified in the Constitution. A majority of citizens cannot prevent an individual from voting because voting is a basic right, as is the right to freedom of speech and freedom of religion, and so on. The state is constitutionally prohibited from undermining these enumerated rights.
Now the high court of California has made gay marriage into a right that is immune from restriction by the majority of citizens in the state. We already know what California citizens think about gay marriage: they oppose it. A referendum outlawing gay marriage was passed with the support of the state's voters. More than 60 percent of voters cast their ballots against gay marriage.
How, then, can a court invalidate the referendum and over-rule the will of the people? Basically through a kind of legal fraud. The court has to pretend that there is a right to gay marriage even though it is nowhere evident in the state constitution. Read the constitution, hold it up to the light, squeeze lemon juice on it--you won't see a right to gay marriage in there. It is simply not an enumerated right, nor is it a right that can be clearly derived from other enumerated rights.
In issuing its ruling the California court appealed to the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The basic logic is that gays have a right to be treated like everyone else. But just like everyone else, gays do have the right to marry. They have the right to marry adult members of the opposite sex! What gay activists want is something else: the right to marry members of the same sex. This is not a right currently enjoyed by anyone. What these gay activists seek is not equal treatment but rather to change the definition of marriage.
MOCKING COMMENTARY - http://youtube.com/watch?v=Ov35-fAOyP8
Well, homosexuals changed the definition of the mentally deranged to exclude deviant sexual behavior, so why not change the definition of marriage so the homos can more fully force their mentally disturbed lifestyle on the normal populace.
Oh really? Maybe you just wait.
In California, a ballot-initiative statute can only be overturned by another ballot initiative, not by the legislature unless (as in this case) it ends up being deemed unconstitutional by the State courts.
They do not. Democracy inevitably conflicts with the objectives of the Left.
Leftists want an autocracy or oligarchy, with themselves as rulers with absolute authority.
This is a fundamental tenet of the Left. The Left is Marxist, and Karl Marx himself considered autocracy to be fundamental to the establishment of worldwide communism, which was his stated objective.
Marxism, as Karl Marx admitted, requires an autocracy for its establishment and implementation. Such an autocracy must be a brutal dictatorship or oligarchy.
Leftists tend to keep their Marxist dogma and autocratic objectives covert, for obvious reasons; if they openly declared them, they would be rejected by most people, at least in the United States.
However, make no mistake. The objective of the Left is the establishment of a tyrannical, autocratic, Marxist government with themselves in control of it.
Also make no mistake about this: In the U.S.A., the Democrat Party is the Political Machine of the Left. The "Mainstream Newsmedia" is its Propaganda Machine.
Nice piece. It’s still just mind-boggling to comprehend the logic of the activist courts. Apparently, there are never enough failsafe assurances they can grant those who seek to normalize their psychoses: It wasn’t enough to allow “the pill,” to integrate college dorms—no, we had to assure no-guilt/no-pain with abortion-on-demand. Likewise, sex-change wasn’t enough; now we’re assuring same-sex marriage. Maybe we’re lucky that it’s taking animals a while to learn to litigate.
What perversion wants,
perversion gets in US courts.
I say we vote to have California succeed from the Union!
All in favor raise your hand and say aya!!!!
The Civil War pretty much settled the right of individual states to secede from the union. But does the union (the federal government) have the power to expel a state from the union if it desires? Could we vote to toss Massachusetts, Vermont, California, etc. if we had a congressional majority for it and a president who would sign the expulsion bill?
If we had only let them have medical hippy lettuce , this may have never happened. I guess the will of the people should not be enforced ONLY when it suits US !!
Why is it that the activist judges always turn out to be republican appointees? How are we going to take back the country with this kid of crap going on?
The ultimate leftist, Satan, called prince of this world by Jesus, is behind this.
Satan is a Leftist ?? who knew.
thanks for the enlightenment.
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.