Thursday, May 12, 2005

Dictators in Robes

Well we didn't have to wait long.

The people of Nebraska overwhelmingly had passed an amendment to their State Constitution defining marriage as an institution between a man and a woman.

Being more than a mere law, that put it beyond the reach of challenge by State judges.

But guess what, a dictator in black robes called it invalid anyway -- this is a Federal judge, a single unelected individual, who claims supreme sovereignty over the will of the people of the entire State.

And since it only takes one to object, in essence it is the whim of EVERY federal judge which must be supplicated.

I haven't read the decision, but I find it difficult to understand precisely which part of the our Federal Constitution -- a very limited document that mostly defines and restricts FEDERAL power over the people and the States -- the Nebraska gay marriage ban was found to have violated.

Certainly the Federal Constitution is silent on issues of homosexuality, marriage, and health benefits.

Which, by the way, are called "benefits" rather than "rights" FOR A REASON!!!

What really happened is it offended this judges personal feelings about the way things ought to be, and being unaccountable to anyone, rules willy nilly by decree.

This is precisely why the Democratic stonewalling of "conservative" Bush-appointed judges must be squashed. Because "conservative" really means that the judge will put the intent of our Constitutional system above their own personal biases to a greater degree than a judge embracing "activism", by which the power of the bench is to be used to further left-wing causes that would never get past the democratic will of the people.
LINCOLN, Neb. - A federal judge Thursday struck down Nebraska's ban on gay marriage, saying the measure interferes not only with the rights of gay couples but also with those of foster parents, adopted children and people in a host of other living arrangements.

U.S. District Judge Joseph Bataillon said the ban "imposes significant burdens on both the expressive and intimate associational rights" of gays "and creates a significant barrier to the plaintiffs' right to petition or to participate in the political process."
These assertions are clearly absurd.

Stop making stuff up, emperor Bataillon!


Post a Comment

<< Home