America is at a constitutional crossroads. The federal courts are threatening radically to revise the family law of all fifty states. There is no Constitutional justification for them to do so. If we don't stop them the American experiment will be at an end. We will lapse back into government by an insular aristocracy, exactly what we waged the Revolutionary War to escape.
Most observers now expect the Supreme Court to rule this year that the Constitution forbids states to define marriage as including only relationships between members of opposite sexes.
[. . .]
No homosexual partners can ever fulfill the mission of a marriage. Members of the same sex can't produce children together. They can, as leftists never tire of pointing out, adopt. Sometimes, in the absence of a better alternative, adoption by same-sex partners may be in the best interests of a particular child. But human beings crave close contact with both a mother and a father. No two men can ever give a child a mother. No two women can ever give a child a father. Some homosexual partners raise children, but they never do so in the circumstances society, for very good reason, prefers.
The argument that the law should treat heterosexual and homosexual relationships as equal is absurd.
[. . .]
Reading the Constitution to require that the law be blind to the distinction between something essential and something extraneous is inane.
Unfortunately, that inanity has gotten popular with our legal elite. A cadre of deranged jurists has decided that mothers don't matter, fathers don't matter, men and women are interchangeable and there is nothing special about marriage that states are entitled to recognize.
[. . .]
In fact, the GOP was founded to nullify a Supreme Court decision closely analogous to Windsor. The 1860 presidential campaign was principally about whether the federal government would continue following that decision. Abraham Lincoln's victory ensured that it wouldn't.
The case was Dred Scott v. Sandford, in which Chief Justice Taney proclaimed that the United States had no power to restrict slavery in federal territories. This was almost as absurd as Justice Kennedy's pronouncement in Windsor that the federal government lacks the power to define the terms in its own statutes.
[. . .]
Both Dred Scott and Windsor were foolish attempts to resolve contentious political issues by arbitrary judicial decree. When judges invade politics in that fashion it is up to the politicians to defend their turf. That's what happened with Dred Scott and slavery.
[. . .]
Republicans governed as they had promised. They defied the Supreme Court and banned slavery outright in all federal territories as the prelude to the Emancipation Proclamation and the 13th amendment.
[. . .]
When the Court oversteps its bounds it is up to elected officials to smack it down and up to the people to demand that they do so.
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/02/same_sex_marriage_and_emdredd_scottem.html
February 25, 2015
Same Sex Marriage and Dred Scott
By J. Peter Mulhern
No comments:
Post a Comment