Why Judges Don’t Know Anything Including the Definition of Marriage

How do you know what you know is true and how do you know it? This is the first question a person should be asked in a debate where ultimate justification is needed to demonstrate the truth of something. Consider the 2-1 ruling that the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York put out that struck down a key provision of the Defense of Marriage Act arguing that it’s unconstitutional.

Judge Dennis Jacobs ruled that the section of the law that defined the word “spouse” when referring to a man or woman’s partner cannot be limited only to a member of the opposite sex, and should include same-sex couples as well. He said that the “classification of same-sex spouses was not substantially related to an important government interest” and thus violated the equal protection clause of the Constitution,

My first question to the two judges would be, “What is the basis of your definition of marriage since the Constitution doesn’t say anything about the subject or establish the source of making moral decisions?” If one of the judges responded that the Preamble to the Constitution states that the Constitution was drafted to “establish justice,” I would ask, “How do you know if a law is just?”

I would go deeper and ask, “What is the basis of your claim, and the claim of those who set up the guidelines for the office of a judge, to judge anything as being right or wrong?”

An appeal to the majority is dangerous since majorities change and can be just as tyrannical and unjust as the opinion of two judges. An appeal to any human institution or philosophy is still left with the opening question: “How do you know what you know is true and how do you know it?”

British atheist Richard Dawkins is going to explore the question, “If there is no God watching us, why be good?” The three-part series, which is titled “Sex, Death And The Meaning Of Life,” will be a study of “what happens if we leave religion behind.” Dawkins believes that science is the key to determining right from wrong. Dawkins “examines the argument that ‘religion’s absolutist moral codes fuel lies and guilt.” If there is no god, there are no lies or guilt. In Dawkins’ atheist moral world, will it be OK to lie? If not, why not? Based on what?

There were never any categories of right and wrong in the primordial soup that evolutionists claim made us what we are today. Dawkins himself stated as much:

“In the universe of blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, and other people are going to get lucky; and you won’t find any rhyme or reason to it, nor any justice. The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is at the bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good. Nothing but blind pitiless indifference. DNA neither knows nor cares.DNA just is, and we dance to its music.”

When the first sign of life emerged and ate the second sign of life that emerged, did the first sign of life do anything wrong in eating its neighbor? If it wasn’t wrong then, then why is it wrong to eat your neighbor today?

Evolved matter does not have a moral code stamped on it, and even if it did, there is nothing above evolved matter that can judge that anything ought to be done or ought not to be done.

The majority of today’s judges are most likely evolutionists. If they are anything else, they wouldn’t be permitted to sit on the bench. They would be accused of mixing religion with law, a clear violation of the First Amendment, according to previous court decisions.

So once again, what is the basis of a fundamental judgment that defines what marriage is or even if there is a relationship called marriage? The judges don’t really know if they reject the premise that God is the One who defines what’s right and wrong, moral and immoral, just and unjust. There is no other source, otherwise what 2 judges out 3 say is true and good today, 2 out of 3 judges tomorrow could say just the opposite.

Today’s courts and the judges that sit on them (for the most part) are without a moral foundation to rule on anything.