April 09, 2005

Because I Want Conversation. . .

I found the following article while doing research for a paper:

"High Court Blasted By Texas Judge"

DALLAS (AP) -- A Waxahachie district judge attacked the U.S. Supreme Court Wednesday, charging the justices with sitting "as deities," doing what seems best to them irrespective of laws and customs.

Judge A.R. Stout, the 40th Judicial District judge for 25 years, accused the justicies of acting as policymakers and legislaters and showing no judicial restraint. (empasis mine)

"They have been doing what seems best to them, irrespective of our laws, the customs of the past, what has been good for this nation in the past and what will be best for its future," Judge Stout said in remarks prepared for delivery to a luncheon club.

Judge Stout said he takes issue with all the Supreme Court decisions on communism and subversion, on the Fifth Amendment, on draft dodging, what he called the "school and mob" opinion and "their aggrandizement of power" decisions.

Source: The Longview Daily News. 12 Sept. 1963.

Judge Stout was speaking out mainly against the Supreme Court's decision regarding prayer in public schools. He is later quoted as saying: "This is a blasphemy on the history of our nation."

What I find particularly interesting about his argument is that he accuses justices of "acting as policymakers and legislators." He is accusing them of "legislating from the bench," to put the accusation in a modern phrase. Where is this argument coming from? The Supreme Court is apparently ignoring past "laws, the customs of the past," and "what has been good for this nation in the past."

Do any of these arguments sound familiar?

They certainly should. They are used every time the "customs" of the majority are challenged by the rights of the minority. Christians used them (and are still using them) to challenge school prayer and the white population used them to argue against desegregation of public places and interracial marriage. These topics were controversial at the time.

Today, these same arguments are being used once again in an attempt to block the rights of a minority. This time, however, the minority consists of men and women of all ages and of all races. These men and women want society to accept their relationships as valid.

It is quite obvious that the majority of Americans do not want to see this. Gay marriage has been banned in a number of states. Most Americans do not want the courts to defy "custom" or to change the "traditional." They prattle on about "protecting the sanctity" of an institution they themselves defiled long ago.

The United States of America may have been formed by men (and women) with a Christian background. Religious and Christian terminology may have been placed within our Constitution and every single important document relating to the foundation of this nation. Christians may still be the major religion here.

However, our nation is not a theocracy. The wants of the majority can not be allowed to overpower the rights of a minority. Under the law, everyone should be treated equally. That is not the case in America today.

We can not pass laws that legalize discrimination against a man or woman because of race, religion, or gender. Why can we pass laws that discriminate based on sexual orientation?

Posted by Randy at April 9, 2005 07:03 PM | TrackBack