Posted on 07/25/2003 10:20:26 AM PDT by cpforlife.org
You may be the product of the public schools system, or have read something somewhere that led you astray, but allow me to give you a brief history lesson.
The objective of the American Revolution was to sever the political ties of the thirteen colonies to the British crown. That is why the Declaration of Independence begins: “When in the course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands …”
The reasons for this were listed in the Declaration. The first reason given was the FAILURE of the crown to “… assent to laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.” The Declaration goes on in the very next sentence: “He has forbidden his governors to pass laws of immediate and pressing importance…”
Surprised? I bet you thought that the Colonists were just aching to repeal the laws of the British crown. Not exactly the reasons that I suppose excite the fantasies of Libertarians.
Imagine that, the American Revolution was fought for the right to make our own laws, and more of them.
The Declaration of Independence goes on, listing offenses such as cutting off trade, imposing taxes without our consent, depriving us of trial by jury, and many other offenses. It’s worth reading the Declaration to find out just why the Framers put their lives at risk.
But not mentioned in the Declaration is “personal freedom.” Which is scarcely surprising since not only were a number of the signers slave owners (including the sainted Jefferson) but most, like John Adams, had a very strong sense of morality that was enforced by public law and private censure.
But for you who believe that a supreme judiciary has moved things in the right direction, here’s another accusation against the Crown from the Declaration” “For suspending our own legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.” When nine unrepresentative people (like a king), chosen for life (like a king) invest themselves with power to tell us what we can and cannot do, does it occur to us that we may have replaced King George with an equally imperious and unaccountable ruler?
Regarding the issue of sodomy laws, prior to the ruling they were so rarely enforced as to be a dead letter. And in most states they had been repealed. However, in those states that had them on the books, they represented the will of the majority. My version of the Constitution does not address the subject. For that reason, the court has chosen to impose it’s version of morality – not the law - on the people. Like the usurpations of the British crown that led to the Revolution, that is troublesome.
You may approve of the ruling and find people who disapprove of sodomy and sodomites are intruding busy bodies. That’s you’re right as a free man. But don’t try to clothe your personal beliefs with the weight of the Constitution and sanctify it with the blood of the Founders.
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.