Wednesday, June 1, 2016
The Dangers of Bad Precedent and Changing the Meaning of Words (Part I)
One of the biggest duties of the diligent and loyal liberal is to change the meaning of words if they do not think they are “fair” – and marriage is one of them. The biblical definition of marriage is a union between two people of opposite genders for the purposes of procreation. Of course liberals find this definition biased or bigoted because it does not support the gay movement. The issue they have with the definition is obviously the part that says “opposite genders”. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court agreed with this liberal outrage in their 2015 decision: Obergefell v. Hodges. I have a great deal of empathy for the gay movement, but that does not mean it has to be hastily forced on all people by setting bad precedent through the bending of the rule of the law. That is exactly what happened. Obergefell v. Hodges is a terrible Supreme Court ruling and commits many of the same mistakes as the Roe v. Wade decision to legalize abortion. In Obergefell and Roe, the Court used substantive due process in its ruling. However, to use such measures, gay marriage and abortion must be “deep-rooted in American history”. Obviously that is not the case: gay marriage and abortion have been taboo throughout history. In Obergefell and Roe, the Court overruled statutes in all 50 states, including many liberal ones. In 1985, Ruth Bader Ginsberg called Roe a bad decision because it legislates from the bench and she felt that pro-abortion laws should have occurred naturally over time as voted on by the people of each state. By doing this, she felt, the gradual move towards an abortion state would be much less controversial. So what does Ginsberg do 30 years later, commit the same mistake that was done in Roe that she spoke out against. The right decision by the Court would have been to use the Tenth Amendment and let the people of the individual states determine the outcome of gay marriage and let it evolve over time. Over 80% of the states already support gay marriage, so it is just a matter of time before each state agreed. In Obergefell and Roe, the Court determined that marriage and abortion are fundamental rights. They came to this conclusion through the “Due Process Clause” and “Equal Protection Clause” of the Fourteenth Amendment. Once again, they used their imagination to conjure up some flaky way to say our founding fathers intended for abortion and marriage to be rights, but just forgot to write it in the Constitution. The Constitution clearly outlines our rights, freedoms, and liberties. If these are truly rights and the will of the people then the Constitution should be amended. In essence, the Court, has given more liberties and rights to women and gays at the expense of the unborn, spouses, and religious folks in its decisions on Obergefell and Roe. In Obergefell and Roe, the Court cites many cases in their majority decision. However, none had to do specifically with gay marriage or abortion. In Obergefell the court cites Loving v. Virginia which outlaws statutes that prohibit interracial relationships (This is exactly what the Fourteenth Amendment was drafted to prevent – racial bigotry, but it does not change the meaning / definition of marriage.) They also cite Lawrence v. Texas which states gay sexual relations are legal. Once again, this does not change the meaning of marriage. By the logic used in Obergefell and Roe, what would not constitute a right? Healthcare was also ruled as a right. If marriage is a right, then wouldn’t follow that divorce is also a right? Most pro-abortion women would never have an abortion. It makes absolutely little sense to make things a right that is not ideal, or something that everyone does not want or necessarily need. These are dangers of saying that a college education is a right or owning a home is a right. Over seventy-five percent of college grads are not finding work, but have built up a huge debt. And the government trying to get every American into a home led directly to the housing bubble and subsequent financial collapse in 2008. Rights, liberties, and freedoms are not forced upon the people, they are natural and common to every person.