Another Idiot in the Local Paper

Amendment will protect us from judicial tyranny (Use Bugmenot if you don’t have an account.)

I am writing in regard to the U.S. Senate’s recent decision to stop discussion of a constitutional amendment to define marriage as between one man and one woman.

The Senate’s decision to end discussion of a proposed amendment to protect marriage was disappointing but hardly surprising.

This is the same bunch that couldn’t muster the moral courage to convict President Clinton when he was impeached by the House.

I, too, am generally opposed to tampering with the Constitution and would agree that most such matters are best left to state and local governments. We’ve developed a society that is far too dependent upon the federal government to address issues.

The problem is the courts have effectively stifled the democratic process. Local and state statutes are not standing because these federal courts have usurped the authority of the electorate. Unless we can manage to impeach activist judges and Supreme Court justices and return to strict constructionism as the mode of interpretation and application of our founding documents, amending the Constitution may be our only recourse.

An amendment that would define marriage as being between one man and one woman would effectively ban homosexual marriage, bigamy or polygamy, group marriage, incestuous marriage and interspecies marriage by positively protecting the home as the basic unit of society rather than by negative prohibition of activity.

At this point in our history, it looks like such an amendment may be the only solution to protect us from the tyranny-of-the-few through the federal judiciary.

Rev. Paul W. Downey, DBS, Ph.D.

Rev. Paul W. Downey is concerned that the US Senate defeated the constitutional amendment to define marriage as between a man and a woman. Apparently, he is so concerned about what other adults do with their lives, i.e. butt-sex, that problems with the amendment over states’ rights, religious freedom, and equal protection do not bother him. The amendment was extremely flawed and went against just about every constitutional tradition that we have.

Downey is clearly totally ignorant about the actual decisions legalizing same-sex marriage in Massachusetts and civil unions in Vermont, yet he feels fit to criticize them anyway. For instance, they were purely state issues; the federal judiciary played no part in them. Therefore, his complaints about federal judges do not follow, and in fact are extremely ignorant. Furthermore, these were not the decisions of activist judges, but of judges willing to uphold state constitutional protections for unpopular people.

The irony of Downey’s letter is that strict constitutionism favors an independent judiciary that protects minorities from the tyranny of the majority. He is not a strict contitutionalist. (In fact, I doubt he’s ever read one.) He is just a whiny, ignorant, theocratic bigot afraid of butt-sex.

TrackBack URL for this entry:

Use KwickXML Formatting to markup your comments, acceptable tags: <b> <blockquote> <br> <code> <em> <email> <h1> <h2> <h3> <h4> <h5> <h6> <i> <li> <list> <ol> <p> <qref> <quote> <s> <strong> <sub> <sup> <u> <ul> <url>. You may need to refresh before you will see your comment.

Remember personal info?


Posted by Douglas Theobald on August 1, 2004 1:42 AM

Hey Cartwright–

To overshare a bit, I’m also afraid of butt-sex. Butt putting that asside for the moment, I’d just like to comment on my experience with some aquaintances who support such an amendment. For the record, I don’t. Amending the constitution is a very serious thing, and the prospect of an amendment that actually limits our rights as citizens, for the first time, is grave cause for concern.

The marriage controversy is really not over marriage– it is about legal and civil priviledge. From a religious standpoint, specifically a Christian standpoint (which is where most people are coming from who favor such an amendment), the government has no authority to say who is married or not anyway. That is an issue between two people and God. The temporary, human government that happens to be presiding over you at the moment really has nothing to do with your marriage.

*However*, legal marriage certificates get spouses lots of good stuff: health insurance, free checking, death benefits, housing opportunities, etc. *That* is what the real issue is about: legal and civil benefits. Is it moral or ethical to deny certain people things like medical care just because they do something you think is a “sin”? Should we deny people joint checking accounts or insurance just because they are gluttons, or liars, or are greedy, or gossip, or boast, or disrespect their parents? (Read Romans Chs 1&2 here if you are wondering what I’m talking about.)

Some people I have argued with have conceded that they would support/allow “civil unions”, with all the same benefits as legal marriages, just without the name. For me, that’s akin to going to war over which side of your toast you butter, but I can see the point. In their view “marriage” is historically, and virtually by definition, between opposite sexes, and that is what the issue is about to them. So, as usual with many controversial subjects, it seems that the advocates of the opposing views do not even agree on what the controversy is actually about.