Rightank

Tomorrow, the United States Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in a case testing the constitutionality of the Solomon Amendment. The Solomon Amendment, among other things, requires universities to open their doors to military recruiters in order to receive federal funding. Many law professors have banned together, led by the many liberal Yale Law University professors, challenging the Solomon Amendment because they feel oppressed by the military’s presence. Why? Because of the miltary policy “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” Rather than stand on their principle (and refuse federal money), the law professors would rather eat their cake and have it too. Professor Peter Berkowitz comments:

[N]obody is holding a gun to anybody’s head, requiring universities to accept federal funds for academic work. If the law professors could persuade their deans and university presidents — to say nothing of themselves — to do without federal funding, then, notwithstanding the war and the needs of the nation’s military, the law professors could, under the Solomon Amendment, keep military recruiters off campus. Trouble is, the law professors want their principle and to pay no price for standing by it.

During law school at Ohio State (where I attended), a letter was circulated each year (signed by almost every law professor) crying foul about military recruitment and how they despised the military recruiters because they discriminated against gays and lesbians. Then, when a military recruiter came to school, a huge disclaimer was placed beneath the recruitment notice stating in unequivocating terms that the military violated the law school’s non-discrimination policy. I’m sure it felt good for the law professors to bash the military and soothe their delicate egos. The Solomon Amendment case (Rumsfield v. FAIR) is an extension of the law professoriat’s unfettered disgust.

I hope law professors smarmy action against the military fails and Justice Scalia blasts them in a heavy-handed majority opinion for their disrespect of the law and our military.

Yesterday, the Constitutional Court of South Africa (”CCSA”) decided to legalize same-sex marriage by fiat. The CCSA’s fluffy opinion is laden with the individualistic niceities of love and devotion but barren in logic and reason.

The CCSA, like many advocates of same-sex marriage, reshapes the societal rationale for traditional marriage and molds it to fit their radical ideals. That is, marriage is not about proceation or the rearing of children. Rather, marriage is really an event that celebrates the individual wants and desires of two people. That individuality not their procreative-potential union is what society was and is protecting when it decided to enact legislation protecting and sustaining traditional marriage. Nothing could be farther from the truth.

The CCSA’s handling of the “procreation argument” illustrates their penchant liberalism. [See paragraph 86]:

However persuasive procreative potential might be . . . from a legal and constitutional point of view, it is not a defining characteristic of conjugal relationships. To hold otherwise would be deeply demeaning to couples (whether married or not) who, for whatever reason, are incapable of procreating when they commence such relationship or become so at any time thereafter.

As I noted in an earlier post, procreation is the main reason why most marriages take place and justifies government protection of that relationship. If procreation is removed, then what difference is there to the nation-state between the union of one man and one woman and the union of two men or two women who admit they are madly in love with each other? Individually, there may be no difference (both heterosexual and homosexual couplings are equally devoted and loving) but societally there is a big difference. Government isn’t in the business of promoting love. However, it is interested in maintaining its population and the stability of its societial framework. Same-sex marriages inherently cannot produce children together. That is why the CCSA and other courts have been forced to disassociate procreation from the institution of marriage.

Disturbingly similiar to Massachusetts, the CCSA gave the legislature an ultimatium–either you legislate same-sex marriage within one year or we’ll be forced to humbly perform the constitutionally-empowered job ourselves. Even more disturbing than that is the dissenting opinion of Justice O’Regan. Justice O’Regan dissented not because she disagreed that to deny marriage rights to same-sex couples was unconstitutional. Rather, O’Regan wanted to legislate same-sex marriage from the bench and completely leave out the South African legislature:

In my view, this Court should develop the common-law rule that as suggested by the majority in the Supreme Court of Appeal, and at the same time READ IN THE WORDS to section 30 of the [Marriage] Act that would with immediate effect permit gays and lesbians to be married by civil marriage officers (and such religious marriage officers as consider such marriages not to fall outside the tenets of their religion). [See paragraph 169].

And this:

The doctrine of separation of powers is an important one in our constitution but I cannot see that it can be used to avoid the obligation of a court to provide appropriate relief that is just and equitable to litigants who successfully raise a constitutional complaint. [See paragraph 170].

Yeah, “constitutional” according to you, Judge. Do you dread Justice Ginsburg or Justice Kennedy writing that same language about the U.S. Constitution? ” Yeah, separation of powers is a important constitutional principle, but, heck so is the right to privacy. Same-sex marriage for everyone!”

A final capstone:

An Act of Parliament conferring the right to marry on gays and lesbians might be thought to carry greater democratic legitimacy than an order of this Court. The power and duty to protect constitutional rights is conferred upon the courts and the courts should not shirk from that duty. The legitimacy of an order made by the Court does not flow from the status of the institution itself, but from the fact that it gives effect to the provisions of our Consitution. [See paragraph 171].

In other words, the CCSA’s order is democratically legitimate because the CCSA is the legitimate mouthpiece of the constitution. Not true, at least in America. Both the Executive and Legislative branches can act constitutionally. Justice O’Regan’s circular powergrab smacks of preening elitism.

The CCSA decision (especially O’Regan’s dissent) showcases the liberal disease of judicial superiority and activism that comforts radical judges when they impose same-sex marriage by fiat–and why if we have more than 4 activists on our Supreme Court, same-sex marriage (despite overwhelming public opposition) will be thrust on America too.

Evidently, the Department of Transportation is celebrating Christmas by putting up a “Holiday” tree in their four main buildings:

The 6-foot-tall, light-covered trees inside the Department of Transportation’s four D.C. buildings are called “holiday trees,” said Carolene Bloomfield, a community-activity coordinator for the agency.

“When having a Christmas party, we don’t call it that,” she said. “Although it’s tradition to call it Christmas, we call it holiday.”

Miss Bloomfield also said the agency uses “holiday tree” so everybody inside the buildings “feels good” about themselves.

“You have to make it seem as though nobody is left out,” she said. “In America, you want everybody to feel special, so you call it a holiday.”

So, by the DOT’s spokeswoman’s logic, feeling good about oneself is not possible if you are not a Christian and you see a sign that says Christmas tree. That doesn’t pass the laugh test. Also, the “nobody left out” syndrome is actually poltically incorrect-speak for discriminating against Christianity. Do you think that the DOT would similarly call a Menorah a “Holiday Candlestick?”