Four rotten, stinking lawyers in black robes called judges told the people of Connecticut to take your religion and shove it to you know where.
~ Radio host Michael Savage, Oct. 10, 2008
Arbitrary power is most easily established on the ruins of liberty abused to licentiousness.
~ George Washington
A few weeks ago, in my American Judicial Process class at Savannah State University, my students and I had a lively discussion on same-sex marriage, domestic partnerships and the constitutionality of states granting gay couples either the right to have "civil unions" or even going further – granting gay couples the legal right to marry.
As you could imagine, discussing this emotional subject with a bunch of young students in their late teens and early 20s got rather spirited, to say the least. One student whom I'll call "Amanda" confessed that she had been in a lesbian relationship for several years, but is now in a relationship with a young man. Surprisingly, Amanda doesn't want special rights for gay couples and contends they shouldn't be allowed legally to marry on religious grounds, but she favors civil unions.
A male student I'll call "Ringman" saw that the emotional level was getting out of control and several times during the debate served as my sergeant of arms and kept the peace during the class discussion. Although a Christian, he sympathizes with giving gay couples equal rights to marry.
A third student I'll call "Lexia" was probably the most emotional. She was in total disagreement with my stand on the domestic partnership issue and though she wasn't gay believed that gay couples should be allowed to marry and be granted full constitutional rights and protections as traditional married couples. Lexia was totally hostile to any other opinions to the contrary no matter the verity of their reasoning.
Since marriage isn't explicitly mentioned in the black letter text of the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, nor the Bill of Rights, we can look at American cultural, social and judicial history as well as judicial precedent (stare decisis). Since 1789 when the Constitution was ratified and the governmental institutions set in place, including the Supreme Court and other lower courts, the historical record overwhelmingly shows that legal marriage was 100 percent between a man and a woman only.
I told my students: With 220 years of moral and religious traditions in America's Constitution history as well as over 400 years since the landing of the Pilgrims at Jamestown, Va., where America's Founding Fathers purposely built their government upon the solid moral precepts of the Judeo-Christian tradition of intellectual thought, it should be unthinkable for a judge in 2008 by judicial fiat and a 4-3 majority to grant constitutional rights allowing gay couples to legally marry. However, that's what the Connecticut Supreme Court did on Oct. 10 in the case Kerrigan v. Commissioner of Public Health.
How did the Connecticut Supreme Court come to this conclusion?
In modern times, America's experiment with granting various groups special constitutional protections began in the 1960s with black people and the civil rights movement. However, these civil and voting rights were not based on the moral suppositions of Christianity, morality and Natural Law – an integration of law and morality – but on raw, humanist, secular congressional power rooted in emotionalism, "social justice," might-makes-right and Positive Law – the separation of law from morality.
On this point, one anonymous writer for UC Berkeley's Institute for Governmental Studies defined the moral vs. rights paradigm in this manner:
The traditional and still dominant view in the United States is that marriage is a legally recognized union of one man and one woman. This view is deeply embedded in moral and religious beliefs. An alternative view, with roots in the civil rights movement and the political activism of the 1960s, takes the position that marriage is a body of rights which should be extended, as a matter of fairness and equality, to couples who do not fit the one man/one woman definition. Many in the gay liberation movement have made the right to marry a key plank in their campaign for equal rights under the law.
Over the past 44 years since the passage of the storied Civil Rights Acts (1964, 1968) and the Voting Rights Act (1965), it is not hard to see tactically how the jump was made from black rights to "gay rights." Gay activists, sympathetic members of Congress and liberal activist judges didn't go to court to argue the morality issues of their cause because the Bible has a clear prohibition against sodomy; therefore, these progressives argued for gay marriage on the basis of fairness and equality, attaching their cause to the lofty and moral ideas and ideals of the Rev. Martin Luther King and the civil rights movement.
The gay movement, and to a lesser degree the feminist movement and the environmentalist movement, from its origins was a full-blown war against America and her moral traditions founded in the Judeo-Christian traditions of intellectual thought.
Using the Due Process clause and the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment, these Democrats in Congress and leftist activists like the ACLU, Lambda Legal, Equality Federation and the National Center for Lesbian Rights – along with their enablers: NOW, DailyKos, Huffington Post, the Washington Post, the New York Times and other entities in the liberal media – knew that there will be some secular activist court somewhere using a fairness argument rather than moral arguments and will grant gay people full constitutional rights to be married along with full inheritance, adoption, insurance and other rights formerly in the exclusive domain of marriage.
You see, dear reader, once one makes the intellectual leap from the morality of our forefathers (Judeo-Christianity) by separating law from morality, church from state, reason from common sense, it becomes clearer how American culture and society devolved so far so fast from the lofty ideals of George Washington, who once said, "Arbitrary power is most easily established on the ruins of liberty abused to licentiousness."
Compare Washington magnificent words to the recent opinion of the Connecticut Supreme Court, which held: "Interpreting our state constitutional provisions in accordance with firmly established equal protection principles leads inevitably to the conclusion that gay persons are entitled to marry the otherwise qualified same-sex partner of their choice."
The fix is in.
Judges at all levels across America, because of Positive Law, which is the separation of law from morals, can now insert their own personal policy preferences, behave like super legislators and pervert the will of the people and American constitutional law and judicial history, because human nature tells the judge that nothing will happen to them – no impeachment, no protests, no pressure of any sort.
How did homosexual marriage become a constitutional right? Once a judge makes the decision that, despite America's Judeo-Christian traditions enshrined in constitutional law and history, morality is irrelevant to judicial decision making, that morality is separate from legality, then the Constitution effectively becomes toilet paper and "We the People" become hostages terrorized by the whims of an oligarchy of 5 or 4 shyster lawyers in black robes.
In the meantime America's republic is, for all intents and purposes, destroyed.