Posted on 05/01/2003 4:30:44 PM PDT by adamyoshida
Lex malla, Lex nulla
The recent ruling of the BC Court of Appeal, declaring that the Federal Government must impose gay marriage upon the people of Canada in little more than a year or have it imposed directly by the courts, is a landmark decision in every sense of the word. For this decision is more than just another simple occasion where a small elitist and radical clique tells the great majority of our people that their views and their values no longer matter, and that when they conflict with the sentiments of the politically correct left they will simply be overruled. It is much more than that: this is a critical step in the Europeanization of our country, a long and slow process whereby representative democratic bodies and their decisions are phased out and replaced by unelected courts, boards and tribunals who legislate by fiat, imposing upon the people values and concepts which they find morally unacceptable and repellent.
Who elected the Judges of the BC Court of Appeal? What gives them the right to say to the couple who has been married for fifty years and which has five children and six grandchildren that, “you are no different than John and Jack who met one hot and noisy night in Stanley Park”? For thousands of years marriage has been between one man and one woman. If we allow gays to marry how long can it be before, given that we have already declared that whoever and whatever can marry as they like, we allow polygamy and bigamy? If a man and a man can be married, on what grounds should we disallow the marriage between blood relatives? The decision renders the act of marriage meaningless for all people. It is yet another blow to families in our Province, another step down the well travelled road towards the destruction of the traditional family altogether.
Leaving all of that aside for the moment, whatever you think about gay marriage, such a radical revolution in our society cannot and should not be forced upon us by courts and judges. The words of the great Justice Ken Smith are not handed down to us upon great stone tablets. In the days and years to come, as the Courts continue to impose this upon us, all of us should remember a single simple Latin phrase: lex malla, lex nulla, a bad law is no law. We should fight this judicially-imposed abomination and, failing we should simply refuse to follow it.
Of course, any opposition to this decision will soon be declared, by people who think so highly of themselves that they give out self-portraits for Christmas (assuming, of course, that they haven’t stopped celebrating Christmas to protest against Capitalism or to join in Wiccan rites), to be ‘homophobic’ or ‘heterosexist’. Just like Chris Kempling, a teacher who was suspended for writing polite and respectful letters to newspapers and political figures expressing his moral opposition to homosexuality, all of us who oppose this will soon find ourselves vilified and figuratively crucified for our beliefs.
What we think about homosexuality must be determined by what we believe about the origins of the thing. If homosexuality is, as it was originally maintained, a biological phenomenon, then we must conclude that homosexuals are deserving of protection because, well, they can’t help themselves. If, as the rights activists of today would seem to contend, homosexuality is a choice, then it is no more deserving of special consideration than foot fetishism. Certainly no sane person would argue that the homosexual lifestyle is a positive thing, a cursory examination of the life expectancy of homosexuals shows this much. According to one study Gay Men in the United States enjoy a life expectancy of just forty-three years.
The homosexual lifestyle is one of the abandonment of all responsibility and restraint. Some would argue this is a positive thing, I would not. Homosexuality is something that exists, and we must accept its existence, but it should be marginalized and minimized, not encouraged and officially endorsed. It is the final step in the destruction of the family and the traditional order, a building block of a utopian, libertine existence that a few radicals hope to create by destroying all of our old morals and traditions.
Now, of course, people will accuse me of ‘hating’ homosexuals for saying these things. Nothing could be farther from the truth, I have no hatred for homosexuality, I just have no desire to join them or to see society endorse their lifestyle in any way, shape, or form. Isolated gays pose no danger to us, we should pity them and try to help them, not hate them. But we should certainly not be so stupid and naïve as to attempt to pretend that being gay is good or normal.
However, you will never hear these issues realistically discussed (even though a very large percentage of Canadians holds similar views) because we in Canada live under what can only be described as a ‘progressive’ dictatorship. Elite opinion in this nation has always, and seemingly always will, trump the views of the great majority of the people. If it were up to the people we would not let murderers out onto the streets after six years and people like Clifford Olsen would be shown to the chair or the needle. If it were up to the people we would not have the CBC, or the Gun Registry, or official bilingualism, or multiculturalism, or any of the other countless socialistic boondoggles imposed upon us from above. So long as we remain in Canada it would seem that we in the West have only two choices: have dangerous, immoral, policies imposed upon us by people we didn’t vote for in Ottawa or have them imposed upon us by Courts that not a single person voted for.
We cannot rely upon the Federal Government to protect us, and we know that our courts long ago stopped protecting the rights of the people. Because of this an appeal to the Supreme Court in this matter will almost certainly prove to be futile (not that it shouldn’t be tried!) because, after years of Liberal and Red Tory appointments, the Supreme Court of Canada is morally unredeemable. For this reason we must turn to the defender of the last resort, the Provincial Governments. Our abominable travesty of a Constitution has, in this case, provided us with a remedy: the Notwithstanding Clause. The Governments of British Columbia, Alberta, and any other places in our blighted land were common sense and decency remain in abundance, should invoke the clause and declare, now and forever, that marriage is, only can be, and always shall be between one man and one woman. To stand by during this moment of crisis would be a fundamental betrayal of the people who have not been consulted about this matter.
British Columbians, at least, have one final resort they can turn to if the Provincial Government fails us. The Recall and Initiatives Act provides us with the ability to put a bill before the legislature even if our politicians lack the requisite courage to do so. If we must, we should at least attempt to exercise this power. We must act. We can wait no longer, to do so could well be fatal to our society.
While I'm all for shrinking government as much as practicable, your proposition above is not at all as neutral as it sounds because it still puts the imprimatur of the state (and the consequent use of lethal force against anyone who deviates from that Official Approval of ANY KIND OF PERSONAL SEXUAL AND FAMILY-FORMING CHOICES) upon personal sexual and family forming choices.
Cordially,
I've heard that one of them thar clever outa-town lawyers invented this thing called a "Last Will and Testament" that clears this stuff right up.
I read an article in the Chicago Trib a day or two ago where well-to-do upper class Mexican people (yes, they do have doctors, lawyers, etc. in Mexico) legally obtain visitor visas when their wives are near term so that they can enter the U.S. and have their kids here. They set up appointments with good doctors and hospitals in the U.S. and pay in full in cash for all services. They don't intend at all to move here; once the kid is born they go right back across the border. They just want their kids to have to option of attending American schools, etc., when they get of age.
Er, the simple fact of the matter is that you have to do that anyway, especially if you have other relatives, a former spouse, etc.
2. ROMAN. Adulterium properly signifies, in the Roman law, the offence committed by a man, married or unmarried, having sexual intercourse with another man's wife. Stuprum (called by the Greeks fqorav) signifies the commerce with a widow or a virgin. It was the condition of the female which determined the legal character of adultery; there was no adultery unless the female was married. It is stated, however (Dig.48 tit.5 s13), that a woman might commit adultery whether she was "justa uxor sive injusta," the meaning of which is not quite certain; but probably it means whether she was living in a marriage recognised as a marriage by the Roman law or merely by the jus gentium. The male who committed adultery was adulter, the female was adultera. The Latin writers were puzzled about the etymology of the word adulterium; but if we look to its various significations besides that of illegal sexual commerce, we may safely refer it to the same root as that which appears in adultus. The notion is that of "growing to," "fixing," or "fastening to," one thing on another and extraneous thing: hence, among other meanings, the Romans used adulterium and adulteratio as we use the word "adulteration," to express the corrupting of a thing by mixing something with it of less value.
Constantine
• Ends persecution, gives aid to built Christian churches • Battle of Milvian Bridge - 312 • Use of cross on shields- • In Hoc Signo vinces dream
Christian influence
•Edit of Milan 313 • Restore confiscated property and titles to Christians • Men could not keep concubine • Make divorce more difficult • Ends gladiatorial games and crucifixion • Improves treatment of slaves
The government will use force to enforce contractual obligations of business partnerships, that is, business partnerships that the government does not deem contrary to public policy.
Cordially,
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.