Brother Nathanael argues the Supreme Court's April decision on gay marriage threatens state sovereignty, warning that four Jewish justices will override local bans with a federal ruling class. He rejects Judge Posner's claim of hate-based traditions and Florida Judge Dale Cohen's 14th Amendment application, noting the amendment targeted former slaves, not homosexuals. Citing Founding Fathers who viewed sodomy as a capital crime in 13 states under British law, he frames the issue strictly as states' rights, asserting private behavior must not override state authority against what he calls a mutating Constitution. [Automatically generated summary]
In April, the Supreme Court decides if states have the right to ban same-sex marriage.
If the court denies that right, then states' rights are over forever, and only a federal ruling class will henceforth decide what states and individuals of those states can and cannot do.
With four Jews on the highest bench holding a pro-same-sex stance, the death of liberty is only one month away.
Does the 14th Amendment, which guarantees equal protection, forbid states from treating homosexual couples differently than heterosexual ones?
Does discriminating against homosexual couples have as its main component, animus, that is, bearing malice toward homosexuals?
This is how the debate is being spun by the legal apparatus, who have turned the Constitution into a living Constitution, far from the original intent of the Founding Fathers.
An evolving, I mean mutating, living constitution is not even law at all.
It's silly putty in the hands of Jewish judges to impose their will on the rest of us.
For instance, Judge Richard Posner recently ruled that restricting who can marry derives from a tradition of hate.
Following Posner, Judge Dale Cohen of Florida overturned the state's ban on sodomite barriages, citing the 14th Amendment.
But Congress passed the 14th Amendment after the Civil War to grant citizenship to former slaves.
It has nothing to do with homosexuals.
The Founding Fathers considered sodomy and same-sex relations as morally repugnant crimes.
That's why the 13 states adopted British sodomy laws which carried the death penalty.
But this is not what the debate is about.
It's not a 14th Amendment debate.
It's not an animist debate.
It's a states' rights issue, period.
What people do in private will have repercussions for them.
You want to be a homosexual?
Go ahead. But don't override states' rights, our last shelter of freedom.