Prop 8: The End of our Constitutional Republic


What Judge Walker wants us all to believe is that when our federal constitution was written and amended, the authors had in mind that marital relationships should include homosexual relationships.

Of course, this idea is absurd.

There are grounds for the federal government to strike down parts of the state constitutions. It’s in the constitution. Read it. However, those parts are very well defined and hardly up for interpretation.

However, even during Reconstruction, the period of time when the Republican Party was busily engaged trying to give the freed slaves equal rights to the previous slave owners, no one dared modify an iota of a state constitution from the federal bench.

That’s what has happened here. This federal judge has made the decision that state constitutions are subordinate to his judicial power, and he has decided that his voice is more important than the California Electorate. Should this judge’s decision be upheld, then it will mean the end of the constitution federation of constitutional republics and the beginning of something new.

This agrees with what congress has done in the past few years, as they have stretched the limits of the federal constitution beyond any recognizable limits.

We are living in a time where a large chunk of our government in all branches no longer believes in a constitutional republic. Instead, they want rule by men or rule by minority or even occasionally rule by majority.

We, as a human race, have already been down this path. It ends in bloody wars and conflicts. Only constitutional republics have shown the capacity to run a country without having wars and such every few decades.

If the liberals wonder why conservatives are arming up, it’s because we know what is coming soon. We just want to make sure when the fight starts, we’re on the winning side.

Please note that this goes way beyond homosexual marriage. The people of California already had that debate and already made a decision on how they would run their state. This is striking something much more fundamental and dangerous.


2 Responses to “Prop 8: The End of our Constitutional Republic”

  1. GEORGE Says:

    Your arguments are disingenuous at best:

    1)The judiciary can overturn legislative actions, whether by an elected body or the electorate itself. It’s part of the checks and balances written into the constitution. There is an appeals process to ensure due process. This is how it has been since 1789. There are powers accorded to the Federal government that override state rights; that was the basis for the Civil War and for desegregation of schools.

    2)The ruling basically says that the 14th amendment does not allow for one group to be treated differently than another unless you can show good cause. Good cause was not established in the trial, no matter what your beliefs might be. That is rule of law. It is also what allowed slavery, prohibition against interracial marriage and Jim Crow laws to be struck down, at the state level.

    3)No one is proposing that government interfere with religion; how else do religious organizations get tax free exemptions and are allowed to participate in the political process? The problem is keeping religion from interfering with government, as half the posting above want to do. This is a secular state; look that word up

    • Jonathan Gardner Says:

      The 14th Amendment, at least the relevant part, reads:

      No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

      I can’t find the “good cause” part you are talking about.

      Tell me, under traditional marriage, are people with homosexual tendencies denied the right to marry someone of the opposite sex? No, all people have the same rights under traditional marriage. People with homosexual tendencies are not discriminated against in any way with traditional marriage. The rights they hold under California law are the same as the rights of any other person.

      While judges can overturn laws, they can’t rewrite constitutions without violating the sacred foundation of our system of government. The constitutions of the states and of our nation are a document created by and managed by the people themselves. Unless the document gives power to the judiciary to change that document, no change can be made. Not even the Republican Party during Reconstruction could change one iota of the constitutions of the states which rebelled against the US. Instead, they had to exclude states from participation in the federal government that didn’t rewrite their constitutions and laws to their liking. If California rewrites their constitution to be incompatible with the federal constitution, the remedy must be to exclude California from he union.

      There is no problem with religion, or any other social institution, participating in government. That’s what our country is all about. An organization made up of free individuals has the same rights as the individuals that make up the organization. (This is why corporations have the right to free speech!) If you want to exclude particular organizations from participation in the political process, then you are going to be violating that very 14th Amendment that you hold dear because you will be depriving the individuals that make up that organization or institution of their rights. I know it’s hard to believe, but Mormons are American Citizens too, and deserve every right someone with homosexual tendencies has. The same goes for Evangelicals and Catholics. In fact, there is a clause in the constitution that prevents a religious test being applied to elected officials. You can’t use religion to keep people out of government.

      If you’d like to see what a country where religious people are discriminated against and not allowed to express their opinions or participate in politics is like, you can find several examples throughout history. None of them are very pretty. Take a teaching from Christ and turn the tables. Would you like to be discriminated against because of your beliefs in a secular society?

      What does the tax code have to do with marriage? Why are you throwing this red herring into the debate? If the tax code isn’t fair, you are free to change it according to the terms the constitution has laid out for changing the law.

      Our Founding Fathers wrote about our national religion—that system of fundamental beliefs. We believe that our rights come from God, not man nor logic. We believe that all men are inherently equal. We believe that men have a right to life, liberty, and property. We believe in a lot of things that are fundamentally religious beliefs, artifacts of the very Judeo-Christian mythology and tradition that you are so opposed to.

      Our Founding Fathers also believed that you can’t have a free society unless the people voluntarily bind themselves to virtue—religious virtue. You can see what is happening to our society as people no longer feel responsible to an All-Seeing God and as they pursue the passions of their flesh at the exclusion of all else. They are no longer free, but enslaved by their own irresponsibility and addictions. Such a people cannot be free and live. These are the kinds of people that need a king to rule them, to keep them from injuring themselves.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: