Your Vote Counts - If We Agree

Here's a riddle for you: When is a democracy not a democracy? When the liberals don't like the outcome, that's when. The one bright spot in an otherwise miserable election day was the news that California voters decided to ban same-sex marriage. Not that this hasn't been done before, you understand, but the state Supreme Court decided in its infinite wisdom to overturn the previous law on some spurious basis. So how did the vociferous and self-important gay lobby greet the result of this exercise of democracy? Not with open arms, it's fair to say - two legal challenges have already been filed, and we can expect the issue to go before the courts again as the militant homo community rejects the democratically reached outcome and seeks to make an end-run around the will of the people.

They should be assured of a warm reception in a court system that seems determined to thwart the democratic process by overturning any laws that go against the prevailing liberal orthodoxy. A recent example was the Supreme Court decision to overturn a Louisiana law that made the death penalty a punishment for child rape. The magnificently arrogant decision was based on the concept of interpreting the Eighth Amendment according to "the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society". In other words society rejects the idea of executing child rapists so any law which allows this must be unconstitutional. How the fuck does this work? I thought society expressed its view on the "evolving standard" very clearly when it decided to pass the law in the first place, so what gives the Supreme Court the right to impose its own lefty views without any constitutional basis whatsoever? The court isn't interested in what society's view of decency actually is, only in what they'd like it to be.

In an ironic twist which would be funny if it weren't so sick, Justice Kennedy suggested that the flow of death penalty cases for child rape could overwhelm the country’s criminal justice system. He noted that in 2005 there were 5,702 reported rapes of children under the age of 12. Hmmmm - seems to me that this is an argument in favor of the death penalty for kiddie rapists, not the other way round. Clearly the message isn't getting through to these criminals.

So how do you measure "the evolving standards of decency" in society? How about a referendum on the issue? What do you bet that if the issue of executing child rapists went to a vote it would be overwhelmingly approved? Not much doubt on that one. Apparently the gay lobby is complaining that the California decision represents a decision by the majority on a law affecting the minority, and as such it should not be allowed.

Well here's an interesting perspective: Obastard has clearly stated that he will increase taxes on the so-called rich in order to fund giveaways to the "poor" (which includes a huge raft of lazy, uneducated scum). The rich are a minority in this country and it seems to be perfectly acceptable to the liberals that a majority who did not create the wealth can elect officials simply to confiscate money from the minority and give it to them. Compared to that the idea of not being able to marry another bloke seems to be pretty trivial.

So how about we take this issue to the fucking Supreme Court? Isn't there something in the consitution about unreasonable seizure? Or do the "evolving standards of decency" only work if you're raping kids or walking down the aisle in a two-sausage freak show? Don't write in - I already know the answer...


Copyright © 2008 Edward Bison