The Arrogant Courts, The Coarsening Culture, The Frightening Future

I have not been a big fan of Supreme Courts these days. As you well know, as an informed citizen browsing stevelackner.com, the Supreme Court of our land declared that the terrorists at Gitmo have habeas rights. Before that we had the Supreme Court of California finding ridiculous rights that never existed in the California or American Constitution.

This week the California ruling took effect. My main focus will therefore be this ruling. Social liberals tend to deride those that oppose gay marriage as primitive neandrathal bible-thumping throwbacks. They rely on words like equality, fairness, rights, discrimination, homophobia and more because one word slogans bely the need for an actual debate. They are not looking for an actual conversation. Once one side labels itself with society's favorite catch phrases the other side becomes the antithesis of these noble sounding words. The traditionalist is a homophobic unfair discriminating bigot while the social liberal is an enlightened fair loving civil rights activist. Case closed. No need for discussion.

I'm going to have the discussion anyway. The truth is that there is a basic logical reason, without the need of any verse in Leviticus, that marriage should be between men and women. Marriage is an institution that has existed to keep men and women together in stable relationships so that they could raise a new generation of productive citizens. That is the practical purpose of men and women uniting in marriage. Marriage is a societal contract, in which the couple are bound together to prepare the next generation for the future. It is a future-oriented institution. That is why governments often provide incentive for people to marry. Because marriage is good for society and meant to keep traditional nuclear families together. Governments should support an institution which is better for a stronger future and better for the next generation. It is not merely about loving couples declaring love for each other. It is much more than that because it is a forward looking institution. In contrast, a same-sex relationship has no future. Nothing can come forth from the loins of two men or (naturally) from two women. It is a relationship that is dependent completely on the present, on feeling good with a life partner until you're both dead. There is no one else other than themselves in the relationship. You don't need marriage for that. You do not need government to provide incentives for people being together because it makes them feel good. Heterosexual married couples have, are, or most likely will raise children. That is a central difference. It is really that simple. The government supports the traditional "nuclear" family because children deserve traditional families.

Our future is being taken away from us by unaccountable judges. People who believe their political agenda can be imposed upon us by judicial fiat. President Abraham Lincoln took office four years after the Supreme Court's infamous "Dred Scott" ruling that ordered the return of fugitive slaves. Honest Abe understood the threat of activist judges. Lincoln said, "If the policy of the government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made in ordinary litigation between parties in personal actions the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their government into the hands of that eminent tribunal." Today we are seeing our government being resigned into the hands of the eminent tribunal. The two Supreme Courts seemed have complete disregard for the rule of law and what it means to be a judge. Being a Supreme Court justice should not simply mean you have become a black robed legislator. It is about upholding the Constitution. That is their only solemn duty. Yet the Supreme Courts of this country seem to be finding new rights in our constitution that have never existed and would never have been imagined to exist. The Gitmo and gay rulings are not bad decisions. They are miscarriages of justice because judges are finding new rights that have never existed, displaying utter disregard for the seperation of powers and the letter of the law. To find new rights, whether its for the guys of Gitmo or gays of San Francisco in a constitution in the year 2008 as if it had been hiding between the lines for a couple centuries is ludicrous.

Our future is no longer in our hands when we have allowed law making to be in the hands of a few lawyers making irrevocable decisions. It is a Supreme Court, not a handful of supreme rulers. We must work to take back our future. Gay marriage is only a first step in what can become the shoving of political correctness with the force of law down our future collective throats. It has the potential of being the first step toward completely eradicating expression and education of traditional values. As Senator Sam Brownback argued on the floor of the Senate in the summer of 2006, "Same-sex marriage proponents argue that sexual orientation is like race, and that opponents of same-sex marriage are therefore like bigots who oppose interracial marriage. Once same-sex marriage becomes law, that understanding is likely to be controlling." Brownback pointed to a litany of potential negative consequences for traditional faiths: "So in states with same-sex marriage, religiously affiliated schools, adoption agencies, psychological clinics, social workers, marital counselors, etc. will be forced to choose between violating their own deeply held beliefs and giving up government contracts, tax-exempt status, or even being denied the right to operate at all. ... It's already happening, as we've seen in Massachusetts with Boston's Catholic Charities being forced out of the adoption business entirely rather than violate church teaching on marriage and family."

It will be very hard to turn back the American Supreme Court's ruling. There are measures our elected representatives in Congress must take immediately as proposed by Andrew McCarthy in his recent National Review piece entitled "A Quick Way Forward After Boumediene." The California ruling, however, cannot be weakened with legislation. It must be overturned by the power of the people at the ballot box. This may be an even more difficult task if conservatives remain complacent. This November Californians have a chance to turn back the tide. To send a message to all the courts that we will not stand for their "bait and switch" games. That we will not stand for their endangering our culture and national security.


Tweet