Did Supreme Court legalize same sex marriage, Is Supreme Court out of control, Picture of Supreme Court, Supreme Court same sex marriage ruling, What does DOMA stand for, What does SCOTUS mean, What does SCOTUS stand for
The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) released two decisions last Wednesday regarding so called same sex marriage. While both decisions eroded the status and power of states it was the second that will go done in history.
The first case, Hollingsworth versus Perry, was the one court watchers were expecting to make or break the gay marriage agenda. The voters of California had declared that marriage was between a man and a woman, a decision that was countermanded by the California Supreme Court. The U.S. Supreme Court threw out the entire case saying the litigants did not have the right to appeal as they were not direct participants. In so doing the Court has said those who have “standing” to appeal a case state court do not necessarily have the same in Federal Court. A decision that in effect gave the California Supreme Court Carte Blanche to run rough shod over the California electorate.
The Windsor versus the United States decision on the other hand threatens to shake the country to its core. In a case no one expected to even be heard the Court ruled against congress, over two hundred years of U.S. precedent and the thousands of years of history. It was a 5-4 majority decision that dripped with self-righteousness and liberal condescension.
The decision Stuck down the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). The Court went on for pages on how DOMA was an affront to the state’s right to define marriage but then declares states must be subservient to Federal regulations regarding marital rights at the Courts sole discretion as to what those rights are. This illogical train of thought the decision does little to explain.
The Court basically said that on one hand states alone can define marriage but essentially turned around and called homosexual “marriage” a new civil right outside the purvey of state control. The lunacy is expanded further by the contention that the broad sweeping statements are of relevance to the case at hand only. Something that the majority most of considered a thinly veiled attempt at humor.
This Court further distinguished itself by declaring opponents were merely desiring “to harm a politically unpopular group.” A statement that belies the significant legal issues at stake. The insults leveled at its opponents may have been meant to make them look morally superior but in the end they just showed them to be the small trite people they are.
It should of been obvious that if, as the Court held, only states have the right to define Marriage then the Federal government had only two legitimate choices. It must declare the Federal government subservient to what is essentially a state prerogative, in which case whether one can legally declare a homosexual partner a spouse for tax and all other purposes would depend on where they live; a decision that would have thrown out DOMA but not advanced the homosexual agenda. The only other real alternative would have been to declare the Federal government has a right to standardize the definition for its own purposes, it which case DOMA would remain the law of the land. The majority decided both of these did not fit their desire to mold society as they see fit.
Their decision they to throw out DOMA and replace it with an edict of their own has dangerous implications. They completely ignored the fact that if DOMA is unconstitutional so is their own decision. In essence, their own words condemn them. This becomes even more obvious when their justification for the ruling is read. For all their bloviating, they simply fail to give any rationale on how their final decision fits with their initial conclusions. The only answer seems to be they believe they are above law, the constitution and the people.
The Windsor decision reinforces a trend toward judicial activism that seems to be continuing unabated. Such activism is a cardinal threat to the U.S. system of government. Judges are nominated for life with removal all but impossible. Their ability to veto the actions of the people, congress or even the constitution they are sworn to uphold is virtually impervious to override. Only a constitutional amendment can curb their power, and even then it depends on their willingness to bow to it. It seems that although the founders saw congress as the main threat to future generations the Supreme Court is showing itself to be an equal or greater one.
This latest decision will only deepen the divide tearing the country apart if not the foundations of society itself. Further evidence of the corrupting influence of liberalism knows no bounds.
If you like this Pass it on