Judicial Activism

So our President has finally made it official — he now endorses an amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America that defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman. First of all let me say that this is the right way to approach the problem. The Right is now notorious for using the idiotic phrase “judicial activism” — they have decided that if they disagree with the courts then the courts must be biased liberals who have no integrity and are hell bent on solely pursuing their own political agenda in spite of years of dedicated and proven service to this country. This is shameful. No matter who you are, the courts are going to disagree with you sometimes and it is pretty lame to assume that the court has traded integrity for political activism, especially when your man, the Right-Wing George W. Bush, was placed on the throne by the courts in a decision widely criticized. I’m going to say here and now, and I’m a raging liberal, that the act of the Supreme Court handing Bush the presidency does not in and of itself cause me to question its integrity. I disagree but I will not claim it was judicial activism. Karl Rove, next time you program our president to speak, delete this subroutine that constantly calls the courts “judicial activism”. It is insulting, it represents a hostile power struggle between the branches of government and it is unbecoming of the President of the United States.

So I agree — if you don’t like how the courts have interpreted the Constitution, the correct course of action is to change the Constitution. This may be the only time you’ll ever hear me say that Bush is doing the right thing.

Given his views. Which I strongly disagree with. I believe this Constitutional amendment is about the stupidest thing I have ever heard.

The polls are pretty unambiguous — most Americans do not support gay marriage. This is not a referendum on marriage, though — most Americans just plain don’t like homosexuality. The question they are answering, whether they are asked it or not, is do you support homosexuals and their answer is no. There are many an estranged father and son because of this issue — people who will literally disown their children because they don’t like homosexuality. Almost, if not all of these people, are also religious. They think the Bible says homosexuality is a sin. Nevermind all the other sins they gladly participate in, this one needs a Constitutional amendment. Fucking A.

One of my only criticisms of John Kerry is that he is wishy-washy on this issue because he, too, knows what the polls say. He is still saying the right thing, which is that the state is not and should not be involved in religious rituals and what we call marriage at the state level would be more appropriately called civil union. This is a legal matter as far as the state is concerned. John Kerry should have the balls to say that as president he will not support this amendment and that he supports gay marriage.

Which brings me to my final point. Bookmark this page and come back here and give me shit if I am wrong. I hereby predict that there is no way, none at all, zero percent chance that a Constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman will ever pass. That is one reason I encourage them to try — this issue will end political careers because it is completely against more than one aspect of the Constitution. First of all, we’re supposed to have a separation of church and state, so when Bush talks about the sanctity of marriage, he is violating that. Second, we afford equal rights to all people. Read that sentence again. It is nonsense to even be talking about this. Same-sex marriage is a done deal, for sure, gonna happen, no question about it. What you can do is quietly and insistently support it to those people around you who don’t. They’ll come around.

Judicial Activism

2 thoughts on “Judicial Activism

  1. Dan says:

    We have hate groups trying to kill Americans at home and abroad…
    We have people who do not get adequate healthcare….
    We have an educational system that is seriously flawed…
    We have about a million other problems that also seem to be more important than telling people who they can love.

    I am not saying this issue has no merit for discussion, but why are we distracting ourselves from such important issues to consider ammending the constitution over this issue?

    Is this more important than trying to stop another 911? Is this more important than feeding hungry children? Is this issue more important than fixing 1,000,001 things that are wrong with our country?

    Am I missing something here?


  2. chad says:

    What I find most interesting about the right-wing mindset is how they appropriate progressive figures in history — such as Lincoln — as their own, while at the same time clinging to the ideal that change is evil. And by Progressive I don’t mean socialist, I mean merely someone with ideas that challenge the status quo in an effort to change things for the better in some way.

    So, what I am trying to say is that it just seems they have no concept that in 20 years the textbooks in schools will be mocking their attempts to CHANGE THE CONSTITUTION — the most fundamental [read: not to be changed unless absolutely required] part of our national identity. And for what? Some divisive issue that doesn’t belong anywhere near the constitution.

    This is a bit wandering, but another thing this reminds me of is how divided this country really is. There probably is close to a 50/50 divide on a lot of these issues and many people believe strongly that Bush is right. If you listen to talk radio and hear the voices of the angry white men I believe that their main concern is that they perceive something is being taken away from them, whether it be money or some rights. It is easy to perceive such things when your view the world in black and white, as they do. And it is easy to miss blatent contradictions in ideas — such as amending a document about rights in order to prevent others from having rights — when you are absolutely positive that your end is the just end and no others are acceptable. It’s when people start thinking this way that they start becoming fundamentalists like those whom we look down upon as backward.


Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s