…cont’d from before…
A: But how many fundamental rights are declared anywhere, in any bill of rights? Are we supposed to have every single right explicitly stated in a constitution?
B: That’s exactly what the people moved to have done! This was the basic question of the whole issue; whether marriage according to sexual preference should be an individual’s right. In the absence of pre-existing relevant material in the constitution, the people make a motion. The judges in the Supreme Court reviewed it for constitutionality, but then acted as if marriage according to sexual preference had been a right all along and illegally shoot it down. I say “illegally” because the judges are acting outside their jurisdiction as defined by the Constitution. They have essentially voted on the law themselves – not only that, they’ve made their vote greater than that of the people’s. Their votes have made marriage according to sexual preference a right! Each individual judge’s vote is more powerful than the people’s combined vote, and what does this make a person equal to, if his one vote has more power than that of all the people’s combined vote? A king, of course. His philosophy of what should be a right has made him a king, hence the propriety of the label “philosopher-king.”
It’s not so much the issue of same-sex marriage that I’m focusing on right now. You could easily turn the whole situation around by supposing that the summary of the original proposition that was passed was something like “marriage is to be recognized between exactly two people at a time, both consenting and unrelated by blood,” leaving out any restrictions about gender, and the judge might strike it down, claiming “marriage according to sexual preference is not a right”— in which case he would be illegally practicing judicial activism, since there was nothing already existing anywhere specifying whether it (marriage according to sexual preference) should be a right or not, and that was the very reason the people acted in the first place. The worst thing about this judicial activism is that there is, ultimately, no power to check it, at least not in this country. The judges have made themselves kings, to a degree, which is a problem with the Constitution, or with the interpretation thereof.
Furthermore, back to the marriage issue in particular, the judge has opened a can of worms by declaring marriage according to sexual preference a right. As I’ve indicated before, what’s to stop him from declaring it to include the right to marry a creature or an object, or multiple or related people? Another can of worms that he’s opened is the idea that judges can just declare what they think what rights should be. Of course, this has apparently been happening already for decades.
A: Well, do you have any suggestions as to how to fix a constitution?
B: Before I answer that, let me just mention that you don’t need to go getting any ideas that the U.S. Constitution, or any state constitution, actually support same-sex marriage, no matter how many judges declare otherwise. As I’ve just described at length, judges are going beyond their prescribed powers to do so. So one way to help a constitution would be to somehow penalize judges for this kind of behavior. It’s been suggested that a court of lower-tier judges be used to review the action of such a misbehaving judge.
A: Ha! Too late. The judges have already stricken down marriage definition laws in every state.
B: What’s to stop the states from writing up a new one, this time to hopefully be reviewed by judges who won’t go beyond the prescribed limits of their power?