For the most part, those evils have been eliminated, which is generally a good thing, although there are exceptions.
Unfortunately, America’s judiciary is employing an even more sinister method to nullify the wishes of voters and their representatives , with mainstream Americans targeted as the victims.
The new “Poll Tax” works like this: Rather than trying to prevent anyone from voting, everyone is allowed to vote and, when the results are not favorable to “Progressive” elitists, an appeal is filed.
An activist judge will then toss out the initiative, proposition, or whatever the offending vote is called, and do so by declaring the whole mess “unconstitutional.”
An excellent example of the abuse of judicial power is playing out with regard to Proposition 8 passed in 2008 by California voters and which consists of the following 14 words:
"Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."
Period.
Just 14 words that express how the majority in a free and Democratic society feel about a major social and moral issue.
Just 14 words that confirm the teachings of most who adhere to Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, and Christianity.
Just 14 words that reflect a social and moral standard observed by most civilized societies throughout human history.
Proposition 8 was appealed to the California Supreme Court and, on May 27, 2009, the court upheld the proposition, as reported, in part, by the Los Angeles Times:
“SAN FRANCISCO — The California Supreme Court's decision May 27 to uphold Proposition 8 and existing same-sex marriages left in place all rights for California's gays and lesbians except access to the label "marriage," but it provided little protection from future ballot measures that could cost gays and other minorities more rights, lawyers and scholars said Tuesday.
“In a 6-1 ruling, the court said the November ballot measure that restored a ban on same-sex marriage was a limited constitutional amendment, not a wholesale revision that would have required a two-thirds vote of the Legislature to be placed before voters.”
Thus, those 14 words---“Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California"---had been approved by a majority of California voters AND sanctioned by the highest legal authority in the state.
But, of course, that was hardly the end of this issue.
Indeed, on August 4, 2010, Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker ruled against the people of California and the Sate Supreme Court by ruling that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional.
Limiting marriage to a union between one man and one woman is unconstitutional? What in the name of hell is happening to our society?
In all fairness, this controversial ruling cannot be laid at the feet of an out-of-control liberal president.
Judge Vaughn Walker, you see, was appointed by President George H. Bush, AKA, Bush-41, a Republican with liberal tendencies.
According to Judge Walker, the issue is all about civil rights and equality. However, the judge did not elaborate on how Proposition 8 denied gays and lesbians their rights.
If Proposition were left intact, Judge Walker, would gays and lesbians:
Be forbidden from exercising 1st Amendment free speech rights?
Be denied their 2nd Amendment rights to keep and bear arms?
Be forced to quarter troops, in violation of the 3rd Amendment?
Be subjected to unreasonable search and seizure, in violation of the 4th Amendment?
Be denied protections against self-incrimination, double jeopardy, and due process as set forth in the 5th Amendment?
Be unable to receive a speedy trial and right to counsel as guaranteed by the 6th Amendment?
Be denied a jury trial as provided for by the 7th Amendment?
Be subjected to cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the 8th Amendment?
Be denied other rights not specially addressed in the Constitution as provided for in the 9th Amendment?
Be denied power of the states and people as found in the 10th Amendment?
Beyond the original 10 Bill of Rights, would upholding Proposition 8 deny homosexuals the right to be free from slavery (Amendment 13), racial suffrage (Amendment 15), gender suffrage (Amendment 19), poll taxes (Amendment 24), or right to vote at age 18 (Amendment 26)?
In addition, will they:
No longer be free to live where they wish and with whom they wish?
No longer be protected against discrimination in education, housing, or employment?
Be denied driver's licenses?
Be unable to enter same sex unions?
Be prohibited from attending the church or religious service of their choice?
Be restricted from moving about freely, unable to cross-state borders when and where they wish?
In the final analysis, the same-sex marriage debate seems not to be at all about civil rights; rather, it seems to be about whether or not society should be forced to accept homosexual values and morals as mainstream and normal.
Even in its opposition to homosexuality, society does not seem willing to deny any person his or her basic civil rights because of sexual orientation.
Bottom line: How can the same sex marriage be marketed and adjudicated as a "civil rights" issue when no fundamental rights are even remotely threatened?
