The Supreme Court Has Been Co-Opted by Public Opinion

Don’t be fooled by the seemingly skeptical questioning about legalizing homosexual marriage by the Supreme Court Justices. Some of them could be setting us up. We heard similar skepticism when ObamaCare came before the court. We might end up with another 5–4 Roberts-led decision. His lesbian cousin might tip it for him.

Then there are the polls. “Roughly 49% now say they support gay marriage, with 44% opposed. By contrast, 10 years ago, 58% of Americans opposed gay marriage and just 33% were in favor.”

I’ve never seen the questions that go with these polls. I bet that not one of them  actually describes what homosexuality is. It might be a good idea to show some pictures of a few Gay Pride parades and then ask the question regarding homosexual marriage. Do a Google search and be ready to be disgusted.

Words mean something. Homosexual advocates want to change the meaning of marriage. When you go to your grocery store, see what happens if the butcher puts a “steak” label on a drum stick. Stick and steak might sound similar, but they’re not the same no matter if the label says “steak.”

In Bowers vs. Hardwick (1986) the Supreme Court concluded:

Sodomy was a criminal offense at common law and was forbidden by the laws of the original 13 States when they ratified the Bill of Rights. In 1868, when the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified, all but 5 of the 37 States in the Union had criminal sodomy laws. In fact, until 1961, all 50 States outlawed sodomy, and today [1986], 25 States and the District of Columbia continue to provide criminal penalties for sodomy performed in private and between consenting adults.1

The Leftist ‘gay’ community contends that if the late Justice Lewis F. Powell, who voted for Bower v. Hardwick in the 5-4 that upheld sodomy laws, had known that his clerk had been a homosexual, that he would have voted to legalize sodomy.

Why should it matter? People do all sorts of sordid and illegal things. Most sordid and illegal acts are done in private away from the eyes of the public and the law. The law shouldn’t change because someone who does these things works for us and wants them normalized. The behavior should be judged on its moral merits. But how does anyone today determine what’s moral?

The Constitution is little help since it doesn’t say anything about homosexuality like it didn’t say anything about abortion when seven justices in 1973 voted to legalize the bloody procedure. The Constitution also doesn’t say that murder and stealing are wrong. The constitutional framers believed that there was a law outside the Constitution and our personal choices.

Few if any of our Founding Fathers believed that morality resided in personal opinion even if there was lots of it. Slavery was eventually overturned because moral arguments were made.

It’s unfortunate that at least four of the justices are morally directionless like much of the nation. The questions some of the Supreme Court justices asked show that they are uncomfortable in asking the big questions: “Why is anything morally right or wrong? Where is the source of moral certainty found?”

Judges have been cajoled into submission not to reference anything that even hints at being a moral absolute that is rooted in religion. As a result, self-conscious secularists have a field day rewriting the law to suit personal tastes.

  1. Bowers vs. Hardwick (1986), 478 US 186, 92 L Ed 2d 140, 106 S Ct 2841, reh den (US) 92 L Ed 2d 779, 107 S. Ct 29., 147‑48. The plaintiffs in the Hardwick case were caught engaging in the act of sodomy only after the police entered the house on an unrelated case. []