Here Comes the Judge!

By William L. Garvin

“Oh what tangled webs we weave when first we practice to deceive.” Shakespeare

The radical left in this country have little respect for the Constitution or the wisdom of the founding fathers. They love to find and exalt any ruling by an activist judge that will lead to the destruction of traditional definitions of marriage and simultaneously continue their assault on religion. In their atheistic world view, the Constitution should not read “freedom of religion” but “freedom from religion.” Some would even outlaw the Bible as “hate speech” and jail pastors and preachers for quoting it from the pulpit! One should also keep in mind that judges are nothing more than lawyers in robes.

Thomas Jefferson warned of the inherent danger of an unaccountable judiciary in 1823: "At the establishment of our Constitutions, the judiciary bodies were supposed to be the most helpless and harmless members of the government. Experience, however, soon showed in what way they were to become the most dangerous; that the insufficiency of the means provided for their removal gave them a freehold and irresponsibility in office; that their decisions, seeming to concern individual suitors only, pass silent and unheeded by the public at large; that these decisions nevertheless become law by precedent, sapping by little and little the foundations of the Constitution and working its change by construction before any one has perceived that that invisible and helpless worm has been busily employed in consuming its substance. In truth, man is not made to be trusted for life if secured against all liability to account."

Now we see that the court has again declared itself superior to the will of and unaccountable to the people. Simultaneously, in another exercise of raw judicial power, the court has accepted the moral hazard of redefining marriage. It will be interesting to see where this carousel stops. If the “equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment is crystal clear about discrimination,” and the voters’ will is irrelevant, why should marriage now be restricted to only one man and one woman, or two women, or two men? What about the woman who wants to have one husband for each day of the week or the man who wants to have one wife for each month of the year? Isn’t the number “two” rather arbitrary? After all, those who prefer a polygamous lifestyle certainly deserve equal protection and no discrimination.

How now do we tell a brother he can’t marry his sister or a father his daughter or a mother her son plus all the new same sex possibilities? And let’s not forget the North American Man Boy Love Association and all the “discrimination” they have had to endure all these years. There is probably no interpretation so bizarre or practice so perverse that some pointy-headed progressive somewhere would not condone and rationalize it!
It will also be interesting to see not only where the societal line is drawn but also whether or not the appeal actually addresses the legal arguments of the Prop 8 supporters rather than expressing a single judge’s personal preferences. Proponents reject the application of the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses on three primary grounds:
• While marital status confers numerous benefits and privileges, there are no actual "protections" inherent and exclusive to marital status, nor are there any penalties solely based on marital status.
• The Fourteenth Amendment does not demand equal treatment under the law in instances where there is no threat to the life, liberty, and/or property of the citizens.
• Constitutional protections pertain to individuals, not couples, since there are no parameters for what constitutes a "couple" in matters of constitutional law.
It was also recently reported that the 14th Amendment “…clearly assigns U.S. border security and immigration control to the Federal government.” Neither border security nor immigration control is found therein. Nor does it clearly grant birthright citizenship to children of illegal aliens because they are not “…subject to the jurisdiction thereof” i.e., the United States. How that changed is yet another example of raw judicial power.
It will also be interesting to learn exactly what the “new” immigration policy is that the Arizona law supposedly created that the judge found so intolerable. Leftists love open borders and raw judicial power…when it goes their way. By the way, Arizona is still waiting for the meager reinforcements that the President promised. Pay close attention to what he does, not what he says.