It would seem, at least to me, that we now have in this country, a judiciary that can now safely be described as having gone rouge. Or at the very least many of its members seem to have forgotten what their true role is, as it is very clearly defined by our Constitution. It would seem that far too many of those who have been entrusted with the wearing of their black robes seem to be more interested in ‘making’ law than in determining the Constitutionality of laws and in the furthering of a political agenda that is harmful to our country.
The federal judiciary is defined as being a totally separate and self-governing branch of our government. The federal courts are ‘supposed’ to be the guardians of the Constitution because their rulings are supposed to protect those rights and liberties guaranteed by our Constitution. Through what are supposed to be fair and impartial judgments, they determine facts and interpret the law to resolve legal disputes. It is not the purpose of the courts to make the laws. That would be the responsibility of the Congress.
The judicial branch has the authority to ‘interpret’ and to decide the constitutionality of federal laws and to resolve other disputes over federal laws. The job of our judges is to interpret the law and assess the evidence presented. Most important of all, judges are supposed to be impartial decision-makers in the pursuit of justice. We have what is known as an adversarial system of justice, legal cases are contests between opposing sides, which ensures that evidence and legal arguments will be fully and forcefully presented.
All of this brings me to what have been, to my way of thinking, some very questionable, to say the least, decisions recently arrived at and obviously based on politics. Because it was on this past Thursday that a federal judge ordered Kentucky to recognize the legal same-sex marriages of residents who wed elsewhere, becoming the latest in a string of court victories for gay rights advocates. So apparently this judge became another on what appears to be a growing list of many who have now seen fit to go beyond their role as defined by our Constitution.
The judge in question here, regarding the Kentucky case, is U.S. District Judge John Heyburn II, an appointee of George H.W. Bush, who stated that the Kentucky laws that deny the marriages of same-sex couples "violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution, and they are void and unenforceable." The decision makes official a ruling he made on Feb. 12 to strike down the laws. It’s absolutely amazing what these judges can find hiding out there in the Fourteenth Amendment.
The ruling comes amid what now seems to be a growing momentum for legalization of gay marriage all across the country, with federal judges now having struck down restrictions on same-sex matrimony in several states, including New Mexico, Utah, Virginia and Texas. Seventeen states and the District of Columbia now recognize gay marriage, and the trend has gained pace since our activist-oriented Supreme Court ruled in June that legally married same-sex couples nationwide are eligible for federal benefits.
What made this case even possible was because four Kentucky same-sex couples succeeded in doing nothing more than to trick-fuck the system by marrying outside of the state and then returned to challenge Kentucky state laws that declared such marriages void and the attendant rights unenforceable. The couples, who were legally wed in Iowa, California, Connecticut and Canada, did not challenge a state constitutional ban on same-sex marriage. Kentucky had argued states have the right to define what they see as legal marriage. Apparently this all-knowing judge thought otherwise.
The decision in Kentucky comes just one day after a federal judge ruled a Texas law banning same-sex marriage was unconstitutional but declared a stay on the decision, meaning that the ban stays in effect. The suit in Texas was aimed at winning recognition for same-sex marriage in the deep South, where every state has a constitutional amendment or law that establishes legal marriage as only being between one man and one woman. To me, in states where people have voted on a constitutional amendment, judges have no business interfering. And yet that have no problem doing so.
Personally, I have nothing against those who profess to be gay. But what I do object to is how they insist upon forcing their questionable lifestyle down the throats of those who see as being rather, unnatural. And I strongly disagree with these judges who are able to somehow see something, that no one else does, in our Constitution that allows for the perversion of the institution of marriage. I couldn’t care less about the goings on in someone’s bedroom, but I do care about the blatant assault that is now underway, and apparently enthusiastically assisted by our judiciary, against our society.
No comments:
Post a Comment