Are Liberals using the Supreme Court to Destroy the Constitution

I think that liberals are taking away traditional American values by trashing the constitution through the liberal supreme court, and trashing Christianity through the guise of compassion and we are for the poor ideology. America was founded on Christian principles and even Americans who weren’t Christian accepted these values as part of the American culture, and when immigrants came here they assimilated to those values even if they weren’t Christian, and didn’t read the bible or go to church. Even the atheists accepted those values. They kept their atheism to themselves. They didn’t go out and profess I am an atheist, and I want America to reinterpret the constitution and change its culture, so my rights aren’t infringed upon.
Homosexuals kept to themselves about their sexual preference for the same gender, and conducted their sexual affairs in private. They didn’t ask for the culture or constitution to be altered for them. Atheists were never forced to participate in school prayer, which was theistic rather than oriented to a specific religion. They could have excused themselves for the school prayer. There is no need to trample on the rights of Christians. In the bill of rights, amendment one; the bill says, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or of the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances”. There is nothing about the separation of church and state in any of the amendments of the Bill of Rights or in the constitution. This separation of church and state was established by one of the supreme court justices when he interpreted amendment one with a misunderstanding of the intentions of the founding fathers and a misunderstanding of the literal meaning of the words themselves. He said that the intentions of the fathers were to have a separation of church and state and then this became a judicial precedent. Once a judicial precedent has become established it becomes law. Even if the interpretation is so erroneously incorrect that the judge becomes a legislator rather than an umpire. The precedents can be overturned, which then makes that law void, yet they rarely ever are because cases can only be brought in front of the supreme court in specific circumstances, and overturning a precedent isn’t one of them, unless it can be shown beyond a reasonable doubt that this precedent has violated the law, which is very hard to do. In a baseball game the umpire doesn’t make new rules that is for the commissioner of baseball to do, but since baseball is a national past time, and a tradition; changes are rarely made, unlike the case of the constitution. The umpires only make judgments on the established rules similar to judges interpreting laws.

I call myself a traditional secular conservative. I do believe in God, but in a much different way then any of the established world theologies. It is my own philosophy of God, so a lot of my political viewpoints are founded, in ethical and philosophical which is also original and doesn’t fall in the bounds of any specific established philosophy or philosopher. My political views are also grounded in logic, reasoning, and the constitution, but I do think that the conservative form of Christianity should be kept the pillar of the American culture since many of American principles were founded from it and it has always been deeply embedded in the fabric of the American culture; until the 1960’s.Gays and lesbians have the right to practice their alternative lifestyle in the privacy of their own home but once they make public displays of their behavior, and lobby congress for a new constitution just for them they step over the line. Until the recent Supreme Court decisions all of the state statutes defined marriage as between a man and woman. The only way that it could brought in front of the Supreme Court is if the statute violated the constitution or bill of rights, and the statute didn’t violate any laws, but according to some of the supreme court justices of Massachusetts it did violate laws. Justice Greene states that article 1 of the Massachusetts constitution has been violated. Article one says,” All people are born free and equal and have certain natural, essential and unalienable rights; among which may be reckoned the right of enjoying and defending their lives and liberties; that of acquiring, possessing and protecting property; in fine, that of seeking and obtaining their safety and happiness. Equality under the law shall not be denied or abridged because of sex, race, color, creed or national origin”. Clearly article one has not been violated. If we look at the word sex we know they are referring to gender. If two lesbians were attempting to get married the state statute would hold true with them since they are two women rather than a man and a woman. In regard to two men getting married the statute would hold true because the statute says marriage is the union between a man and a woman. This statute is not sexist since it affects both genders equally and is blind with regard to what sex they are. This issue is about moral turpitude and judgment or sexual preference.

Proponents of same sex marriage always claim you can’t legislate morality unless laws have been broken. This is true, but you also can’t legislate morality that has the effect of changing an existing law that is legal to make laws and regulations apply equally to all people. The government can only regulate morality when it comes to basic rights and freedoms, which are inherent in all individuals. The founding fathers of the United States and of Massachusetts didn’t literally mean all men were created equally by the creator. Their idea was abstract and it meant that God looks at all children equally no matter their skills or lack of skills, their wealth, intellectual ability, and educational attainment. In the eyes of God we are all his children and he loves us equally and since man is created in Gods image we should love and treat our brothers and sisters equally and not discriminate against them for their differences. However since they thought the role of government was limited they didn’t want government regulating equality and changing laws and rules that were legal in the first place to accommodate; in this case, the desires of others. If we were to regulate equality then we would have to live in a socialist or communist society. We would have to take money from the rich and give it to poor and make sure their is only one class in this country and they have an equal amount of income In order to do this you would have to trample on the rights and liberties of the middle and upper class, and leave the country vulnerable to a national security threat since this would destroy our economy, and without an economy how could we defend ourselves from a military threat. Clearly the constitution says that it is our governments job to provide for the common defense of all its citizens. Would we ask our government to change our whole economic system to establish economic equality between the rich and poor? The constitution does say people are to to be treated equally. Of course not that would be ludicrous and would put our entire country in jeopardy as I have just pointed out earlier. There are cases where a new proposed legislation may be perfectly legal and moral, but it may destabilize a society or pose a national security risk. Even though that law is legal and moral it disturbs the peace or can pose serious health risks, so that law is changed. So laws don’t necessarily need to be illegal or immoral to be changed. We see many examples of these legislative changes throughout history and it clearly states this in the Massachusetts constitution. Sometimes a law is legislated which is illegal according to the constitution and immoral and it even violates the principle of liberty and the pursuit of happiness, which is in the constitution but because our national security is at risk the legislation is ratified and put into effect. We have seen examples of this in our history like the unauthorized wiretap, which is vital to our national security. In this case time is our enemy and getting authorization for a wiretap would cost many lives and maybe even national security. If you have a plane with 500 people on it that has been hijacked by terrorists and you know if the plane crashes most of the United States will be destroyed. If you shoot it down 500 people die, but the rest of the country is saved. The terrorists say they will land the plan safely and disarm the bomb if you wire them Thirty million dollars, but we know from past experiences that kidnappers and terrorists usually kill their hostages even when their demands are met, so naturally the logical thing to do is shoot down the plane. National Security is more important than liberty, equality, fairness and even human life because survival of the country is at stake. We know that Gay or Lesbian Marriage can destabilize, disturb the peace and even be a national security threat to our country. The judge in favor of same sex marriage said the purpose of the state for establishing marriage isn’t to procreate, and she is correct. A man and woman don’t have to be married to procreate. She states the purpose of marriage is to be able to discern property right and tax benefits, a commitment to mutual exclusivity and happiness, and denying marriage to same sex couples would deny them those rights. However same sex marriage makes it impossible to copulate with the opposite gender, since they would have to go outside of their marriage for that and commit infidelity, which is a crime? The main purpose of copulation in a biological and societal sense is to propagate progeny for the benefit of stabilizing society. We know this to be true from historical and scientific evidence, and it is an established fact in both those disciplines. If half of the country became homosexuals and lesbians the birth rate would become low and eventually our country would destabilize and go extinct or the population would get to low to provide for the common defense. This is a definite threat to national security, so the state does have an interest in protecting the institution of marriage, not because the purpose of marriage is procreation, but because by give the right to marry to same sex couples you prohibit these individuals from the possibility of propagating their progeny and you deny the country its inalienable right to exist in the future.

Finally, with regard to individual rights and equality under the law; I would like to give some real life examples of the government abridging equality to certain groups on the basis that it would destabilize society, and this is the same government that granted certain rights to same sex couples to give them equality under the law. No state is willing to make polygamy legal even though Mormon polygamists have fought hard for it. By denying them the right to get married we are denying the first amendment, which is freedom of religion. Their basis for polygamy is a religious basis. We are also denying them fourteenth amendment rights, which says nobodies equality shall be denied based on sex, color, race, creed, and national origin. Creed is defined as an individuals principles, belief system, or religious faith or doctrine. We are denying polyandrists, bigamists, and people who believe in incestuous marriages their 14 amendment rights under creed, but we are not going to legislate or adjudicate or legislate a law to give them equality under the law for them in regards to marriage. Another example, are individuals who emigrate from countries with tribal cultures. In a lot of these tribal cultures men and women walk around naked. Once they come to this country they are forced to wear proper attire. If we were to apply the 14th amendment of equality under the law for all people without regard to sex, color, race, creed, and national origin then we have just violated their 14th amendment rights in regard to creed and national origin.

James Madison in his Federalist papers # 51 talks about the power and divisions of the branches of government and remedies to limit the passions and interests of individuals. He implies that the remedy to this problem is to have many factions with many different interests, so the majority could not oppress the minority, but also so the minority couldn’t oppress the majority. When we have huge lobby groups with lots of money that lobby congress and lobby the judiciary for certain special privileges we allow James Madison’s worst nightmare to come true. The minority is able to oppress the majority, which goes on with lobbyist groups such as pro-choice and gay and lesbian lobbyist groups.

In conclusion we need to get back to the principles that this great nation was founded on, and go back to the bill of rights and constitution when we aren’t sure. Finally, we need to limit the power of lobbyist and special interest groups, and also limit the role of government especially since limited government is the foundation of a democratic republic with a lazzere faire capitalist style economy.