supremecourt

Two things can be taken away from the Supreme Court’s recent decisions on the question of gay marriage.


Advertisement


First, the majority of the court sees it as a state’s rights issue.

And, second, just as in Obamacare, they are reaffirming the principle that elections have consequences.

In the case of California’s Proposition 8, they essentially said that if you elect a Governor and a Lt. Governor who will not defend the right of the people to challenge a court’s decision by referendum, then you are well and truly screwed.

If, as an example, Ronald Reagan or Pete Wilson had been the Governor of California, than it is probable that the Supremes would have had to decide the issue on the merits (and who knows which way it would have gone?).

Because when Governor Jerry “Moonbeam” Brown refused to file an appeal of the District Court’s decision invalidating the People’s vote on Proposition 8 and his Lt. Gov., Gavin Newsom did the same, then that was the ballgame.

Now that’s the law, and the law may be an ass, but it’s the law.

What to do?

Well, as I’ve said in this space before, the final opinion on so-called gay marriage will not come from the Supreme Court of the United States of America or any other nation.  It will not come from the Chief Rabbi of the Union of American Hebrew Congregations, some self-appointed imam, or the Pope.


Advertisement


It will come from God.  At a time and place of God’s choosing.

The civil law—which IS officially an ass—can be corrected by the People of California passing an amendment to their Constitution REQUIRING their Governor to defend what the majority of their citizens vote on in any court challenge, or lose their office.

And as for the overall question of marriage, the Supreme Court has affirmed that the Federal Government needs to leave that to the individual states, but that it must honor whatever benefits it grants to all married couples who are legally married by those states.

If only they had left the question of abortion alone in a similar manner.

But I digress.

Now, the battlefield becomes the state legislatures because they get to pass the laws that allow, disallow, and regulate marriage, divorce, and, yes, the education of children.

The truth is—as we have seen in the immigration debate—you don’t have much influence in Congress no matter who you are.

But you can probably walk out of your house and in a few minutes be standing in the doorway of the house of your representative at the state capitol.  And he or she will have to listen to you.

As I’ve always said in this space, I don’t know why it is necessary to redefine marriage—which is a religious enterprise, not a governmental enterprise—to keep up with the times.  I don’t understand the gay agenda because I don’t know why it is so important to the activists that I know about and approve of their sexual activities.

I don’t care about who Kim Kardashian sleeps with.  Why should I care about who Liberace slept with?

That said, this debate is now completely up to you.  You can choose to allow your state government to do what California’s officials did.  Or you can unelect them.

Don’t whine to me about the results of an election.  Win the next one.

I’m tired of hearing all the rhetorical crap.  We have elections in this country for a reason; and if you lose, then you need to do a better job next time.

If you don’t like a Supreme Court decision, than stop expecting the Court to backstop bad electoral judgment and win some elections.  Whether or not you like it, the court did its job.  They called balls and strikes within the framework of what they had to work with.

They are not to blame if you don’t like the result.

You are.

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by WesternJournalism.com.



Don't Miss Out. Subscribe By Email Or Facebook

Email

Facebook