Joseph Farah isn’t going to wait until his Sept. 11 day of prayer to request that the lord sway the votes of the Supreme Court justices in the two marriage equality cases they’re currently considering. And he’s making some illogical and inconsistent arguments about it.
In a few weeks, the U.S. Supreme will make rulings in two cases that will determine whether America continues as a self-governing nation under the rule of law and will of the people or it goes the way of most other countries and descends into oligarchy and tyranny.
That is what the stakes are in rulings the justices will make on the definition of marriage.
You keep using those words; I do not think they mean what you think they mean. We’ve been an oligarchy for decades. And his definition of tyranny seems to be any time the courts overturn a law passed by Congress or by referendum.
In one of the two cases, homosexual activists are asking the court to declare the duly enacted Defense of Marriage Act, known as DOMA, unconstitutional. The law simply defines marriage as the union of one man and one woman in the United States. Following the rule of law, it was passed overwhelmingly by both houses of Congress just 17 years ago and signed by Bill Clinton.
Hey, guess what? The Affordable Care Act was also passed by both houses of Congress and signed by the president. So when Farah was demanding — and, ironically, praying — that the Supreme Court overturn that law, he was encouraging oligarchy and tyranny, right? By his reasoning, yes.
The other case involves the will of the people – in this case the people of California – who voted in a statewide referendum called Proposition 8 to define marriage as the union of a man and a woman. Homosexual activists got two federal courts to declare the referendum vote unconstitutional, and Proposition 8 sponsors have appealed their decisions to the Supreme Court.
So what does all this mean? It means that Farah thinks that whenever the Supreme Court overturns a law that he approves of, that’s oligarchy and tyranny. And when they overturn a law that he does not approve of, that magically is not oligarchy and tyranny. How convenient for him.
Kennedy has been throughout his tenure on the court the proverbial swing vote – supporting the rule of law and the will of the people sometimes and supporting judicial activism that undermines self-government and the Constitution at other times.
Just like you’re doing, Joe. What a coincidence.