Is God an Appointed Position?

· Sunday, September 5, 2010

The only people I’ve ever heard of who got to wear their bathrobes to work were Hugh Hefner and America’s judges, and however you may feel about the man from Playboy, I’d venture that judges have created far more havoc for society.

At the time of Roe v. Wade, abortions were illegal in 30 states, but were permitted in 20 others in cases involving rape, incest or medical risk to the woman. In other words, they reflected the attitudes of the people who lived in different parts of this country. But in 1973, the Supreme Court distorted the Constitution in order to make abortions legal and readily available in every state. However you may feel about abortions, you should think twice before applauding seven people who weren’t elected legislating from the bench. Keep in mind that next time, these arrogant road-company Solomons may be goring your ox.

Recently, Judge Vaughn Walker decided to over-rule the California voters by deciding they had no right to define marriage as the joining together of one man and one woman, just as other California-based judges decided they had the right to set aside votes involving capital punishment and illegal aliens.

Just the other day, a judge decided that Gov. Schwarzenegger couldn’t impose a three day-a-month work furlough for state workers as a way to deal with the state’s financial woes. How nice it must be to sit on Mt. Olympus and not have to worry about meeting payrolls with non-existent money.

The question isn’t whether or not you agree with these imperial decisions, but whether one non-elected civil servant is entitled to set aside elections and executive decisions because he or she simply doesn’t approve of them.

After all, if Americans had wanted to be ruled by tyrants, we wouldn’t have bothered tossing the tea into Boston Harbor and fighting a revolution. By most accounts, King George wasn’t so terrible.

The interesting thing about the campaign for same-sex marriages is that in every state where it’s been on the ballot, the people have voted against it. In the few states where it is legal, it exists by judicial fiat.

According to an exhaustive study conducted by Maggie Gallagher and Joshua Baker, same-sex marriages concern homosexuals symbolically, but are of very little practical importance. According to their research, 2.3% of the population are homosexual males, 1.3% are lesbians. With an adult population of about 220 million, that would add up to about five million gay men and about 2.8 million women. That would make for about four million potential unions, but in Massachusetts, the first state where such marriages were made legal in 2004, there were fewer than 6,000 marriages that first year and a mere 1,300 in 2005. And keep in mind that gay couples were coming there from other states.

In the Netherlands, over a five-year period, only 8,000 marriages took place. In Belgium, in the first 18 months after such marriages became legal, 2,200 couples exchanged vows. In the same timeframe, in all of Canada, only 4,500 gay marriages occurred. And keep in mind that it wasn’t just Belgians, Dutch and Canadians, who were getting hitched in those countries.

One other telling statistic is that after the initial novelty and publicity die down, the number of same-sex marriages rapidly declines, although you’d never know it from the way the MSM covers the topic. Judging by the press, you could easily conclude that it’s only homosexuals who are interested in tying the knot.

Some people argue that to deny gays the right to marry one another is the same thing as denying blacks the freedom to drink from public drinking fountains or to sit wherever they wish on a bus or in a movie theater. That is such a fatuous belief that it doesn’t really bear refuting, except to say that the Civil Rights Act led to strengthening American society and correcting historical wrongs. Same-sex marriages, on the other hand, turn commonsense on its head and would, inevitably, lead to people demanding the right to marry a parent, a sibling or all the showgirls in a Las Vegas revue, so long as all parties consented.

Also, it is absurd to claim that such marriages have no effect on traditional marriages. The truth is, they make a sham of marriage. It’s bad enough that a number of Hollywood celebrities have gotten married for a few days before they’ve sobered up and gotten their annulments and that Jennifer Aniston, in order to promote yet another of her lame comedies, went on TV and told young women that children don’t need fathers, and that brain-dead liberals promote the nutty notion that two mommies or two daddies are as good -- actually better! -- than a father and a mother when it comes to raising children.

Far too many people are loath to consider consequences. Hubert Humphrey labored mightily to help pass the Civil Rights Act, so he was in no mood to listen to those who claimed it would lead to race-based quotas. In fact, he said if it did, he, personally, would eat the bill. As we all know, in spite of its good intentions and generally positive results, it led to affirmative action (aka quotas) in employment and education. So far as we know, Sen. Humphrey never ate even a single page.

Just recently, U.S. District Court Judge Nicholas Garaufis was asked to rule in a case where a written test for would-be firefighters resulted in what spin masters called disparate test results. In standard English, that meant that blacks had scored much lower than white applicants. Even though Judge Garaufis admitted there was nothing racial or discriminatory about the actual test, he ruled that the results had to be thrown out. In the meantime, the 300 white guys who scored the highest can’t be hired. And somewhere fires are raging and people are dying, but Judge Garafuis sleeps the sleep of the smug and self-righteous, while liberals sing his praises.

So it’s not enough that the proverbial playing field that blacks and other liberals are always calling for be level. Instead, the left-wing elitists who are parking their butts on the bench get to determine which team actually wins the game.

These days, if you want honest, objective, impartial decisions, don’t look to the courts; instead, go to a baseball game.


Third-party content does not necessarily reflect the opinions of The Patriot Post.


Comments

Mark

Checks and balances established in the Constitution to protect our rights as citizens only works when all the people live honorably by those rules. That also requires that we be moral people with integrity who act ethically for the common good. When a majority of people in those legislative, executive and judicial positions hold none of those values, we find ourselves living in chaos and lawlessness. Getting this nation back on track again will require a very deep purge, first in each of us; those elected and positioned as well as those who do the electing and positioning. We are drawing very close and may well have already passed the point of no return.

Posted September 5, 2010 at 9:55:39 AM


Brian

The Constitution clearly states that justices shall retain their appointment with good behavior. Violating their oath of office by ignoring the Constitution is not good behavior. Therefore, it should be no problem at all to impeach and remove those justices who make a point of circumventing the Constitution and the rule of law. All we need are leaders with enought balls to do it.

Posted September 5, 2010 at 8:12:59 PM


Clarence E. DeBarrows

"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

John Adams

Posted September 6, 2010 at 1:15:02 PM


Mac

Any more, "judge" is an oxymoron. We have robed opinion makers. Disgusting isn't it.

Posted September 6, 2010 at 3:14:45 PM


JB

The Constitution says a number of times "Congress shall make no law." The problem is that it does not say anywhere "The Courts shall make no law." Now the judges have taken it upon themselves to legislate.

Posted September 6, 2010 at 8:02:48 PM


MichaelSSEC

It's revealing that whenever the Left gets a Leftist judge to engage in the manufacture of benchlaw, they never want to talk about Democracy or the Constitution or even liberty. It's all about accomplishing some Leftist goal, ostensibly to "help" somebody, but whenever the Left "helps" a guy he winds up worse off than if he'd jumped off a bridge.

When a judge issues an objective ruling taking the Constitution into account, the Left throws a temper tantrum and calls it "judicial activism." So now when you're practicing judicial activism, you're hailed as a hero of the Peepul, but when you're actually upholding the Constitution, you're excoriated as some kind of monster engaging in hateful "judicial activism." It's the usual Leftist inversion whereby whatever is good is made to seem bad, and whatever is bad is made to seem good.

When will Americans decide they've had enough of these lies and deceptions? When will they take this country back from the union thugs, the propagandists in our schools, the JournoList sycophants and peddlers, and the so-called leaders who are the most corrupt since Rome? When will they teach these radicals once and for all that Americans are made of better stuff?

Posted September 6, 2010 at 11:09:52 PM


MoeLarryCurley

Congress is supposed to enact laws that flow into the lawful boundries of the Constitution. That's not the case in modern times. Congress spews out any "law" that hands them a couple of points in the popularity polls regardless of whether or not it's within the bounds of the Constitution. The Courts are then left to sort out cases distilling law from their personal intrepretation. When Congress enacts laws with no Constitutional foundation, then the Courts are allowed the free reign to promote their judicial activiism.

Posted September 7, 2010 at 1:02:43 PM


pete

Burt,

The argument that there as only a few same-sex marriages does nothing to mitigate the violation of people who see homosexuality as an affront to God. Just like being forced to pay taxes that support abortion against ones beliefs, any coerced support of the 3.6% of gay Americans is a violation of the civil rights of the other 96.5% of Americans. Judges are supposed to treat all equally!

On the economy:

1. I would have every politician, government employee and corporate officer with a net worth of more than $1,000,000 ($1 million) working for $1 ($1 dollar) per year, paying for their own medical insurance, supplying their own transportation, and ineligible for ANY retirement plan. They have plenty enough to take care of themselves!

2. Every government employee would take a 15% cut in pay. Since most of these are getting 30-70% more than private sector employees, they should have no complaint. Any that do complain can be released back into the work force forthwith.

3. All union employees: look at the people around you. Which of those do you want to see out of a job? Go over and tell them, "Sorry, but you gotta go!" Or take a voluntary 10% pay cut.

4. Only those earning less than $30,000 per year will be exempt from cuts.

There will be no return of funds "donated" in any reduction, nor any "in like kind" adjustments or other "pay-back." These are all to get the whole country back on track, and the massive payback in 1 year or two years or ten years will make the fix only temporary until that time.

Regular raises OR bonuses can be given only if the overall economy dictates, and they will be computed by and limited to Social Security COLAs.

A little LEADERSHIP FROM THE TOP would do more to get our economy going than the $3.1 TRILLION this administration has pissed away has done.

Posted September 7, 2010 at 4:24:35 PM


Merry Colin

As always Burt, you are right on the money!

The saying that I heard was, "If you want justice, go to a whorehouse; if you want to get screwed, go to court!"

Posted September 12, 2010 at 9:34:27 PM


Post a Comment

Please keep comments civil and brief. Obscene, profane, abusive and off-topic comments will be deleted. Repeat offenders will be blocked.

(required, displayed)
(required, not displayed)
Facebook Twitter YouTube RSS Connect with The Patriot Post






Our Mission

To Support and Defend -- Read The Patriot Post -- It's Right. It's Free. -- www.patriotpost.us

"The Patriot's mission is to advocate for Essential Liberty, the restoration of constitutional limits on government and the judiciary, and to promote free enterprise, national defense and traditional American values. Our objective is to provide Patriots across our nation with a touchstone of First Principles through brief, informative and entertaining analyses of relevant news, policy and opinion from reputable research, advocacy and media organizations, so they may better support and defend those Principles, and enlist others to join our ranks." —Mark Alexander, Publisher


The Patriot Post is not sustained by any political, special interest or parent organization, and we accept no advertising. Our mission and operations are funded entirely by the voluntary financial support of Patriots like you!

Support The 2012 Patriot Fund