The Frederick Douglass Foundation Calls SCOTUS Gay Agenda Blessing a Blasphemous Shot at Democracy WASHINGTON, DC. The executive branches of California Governor Jerry Brown and of President Barack Obama have set a deleterious precedent. California’s Proposition 8 was a referendum defining marriage in California as a union of a man and a woman. Over 7,000,000 voters in California voted in favor of marriage as defined by God in the Bible well before the United States Constitution was even conceived. The will of the people that voted for this proposition (black voters in California actually voted in favor of this proposition in the highest of majorities) was overturned by one gay District Court Judge Vaughn Walker. Because he was gay, he probably should have recused himself but didn’t. When the people tried to overturn this rogue judge, the governor and attorney general of California refused to uphold the law that was passed by the people in direct democracy because they didn’t agree with it. For that reason, the Supreme Court ruled that those who brought the case to the Court had no standing, simply because they weren’t representing the executive branch, which, in violation of their oaths of office, refused to uphold the laws of the people in the first place. The consequence is that the votes of the people do not matter as much as the whims of the radical liberals that are running California into the ground. This even suggests that the votes of blacks do not count as much as the will of the Gay Agenda, which went to extreme lengths to persecute anyone who supported, donated to and even voted for the proposition. People lost their businesses, their jobs and their livelihoods because the Gay Agenda sought to destroy anyone who stood in their way of redefining the Word of God in California. Regarding the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), President Barack Obama’s refusal to order Attorney General Eric Holder to uphold the laws he’d sworn he’d uphold at inauguration also helped lead to a portion of the Act being called unconstitutional by the radicals on the Supreme Court. DOMA was passed by huge bipartisan majorities in both the House of Representatives and the Senate, and it was signed by President Clinton in 1996. Its main purpose was to leave the definition of marriage to the states by enabling one state to refuse to recognize a “gay marriage” performed in another state based on equal protection. The part of the Act that allowed the Federal Government not to recognize “gay marriages” for the purposes of Federal programs was struck down by the liberals with a maniacal message of derision for all conservative-thinking folks who do not share the ungodly arrogance it took these justices to thumb their noses at God. In his brilliant dissent, the good Justice Antonin Scalia wrote: “It is one thing for a society to elect change; it is another for a court of law to impose change by adjudging those who oppose it hostes humani generis, enemies of the human race.” The majority called Christians in favor of marriage, as defined by God, “enemies of the human race.” The tragic hero in all this is Paul Clement, the attorney who was hired by the House of Representatives to defend the law that the House had passed. Because the executive branch of the President refused to defend the law, the House hired law firm King & Spalding to defend the law. But, due to pressure from the Gay Agenda, King & Spalding pulled out. Paul Clement, however, resigned from his law firm and finished the job he had started. In his resignation letter he wrote: I take this step not because of strongly held views about the statute. My thoughts about the merits of DOMA are as irrelevant as my views about the dozens of federal statutes that I defended as Solicitor General. Instead, I resign out of the firmly-held belief that a representation should not be abandoned because the client’s legal position is extremely unpopular in certain quarters. Defending unpopular positions is what lawyers do. The adversary system of justice depends on it, especially in cases where the passions run high. Efforts to delegitimize any representation for one side of a legal controversy are a profound threat to the rule of law. This man gave up his job to fulfill his obligation as a practitioner of law, while our president and California governor have successfully demonstrated how executive branches can change society by refusing to uphold the laws passed by men. This is a shameful day for the ideals of democracy and for our Republic. No longer are we a government of the people, by the people and for the people. We are now ruled by a judicial oligarchy that refuses to uphold the laws of the people and executive branches at the state and federal levels that refuse to do defend the laws they don’t like politically. We Christian “enemies of the human race,” who’ve suffered .... Keep reading HERE fdfny.org/blog/2013/06/27/scotus-takes-a-blasphemous-shot-at-democracy/
Posted on: Thu, 27 Jun 2013 14:54:10 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015