My home state of Nebraska is unique in the United States in that its legislature has one house. Every other state in the Union has a bicameral legislature, as is the Congress of the Untied States. There are a few US territories that have unicameral legislatures, but Nebraska is the only state with a unicameral legislature. A ballot initiative in 1934 abolished Nebraska's former House of Representatives and gave its powers to the Senate, which was renamed the Nebraska Legislature, and it is often referred to as the Unicameral. This is an example of the people exercising their supreme authority to establish or change the manner in which they are governed and to create laws for their state.
In 2000, the very same thing happened, but with a different issue and a different outcome. A ballot initiative which defined marriage as a heterosexual union and denied recognition to any homosexual union granted in any other state passed with over 70% approval, and was enshrined in the state constitution. Again, this is an example of the people exercising their supreme authority to establish or change the manner in which they are governed and to create laws for their state.
But this initiative, unlike the initiative that created the Unicameral, was challenged, and will likely be challenged again. It was ruled unconstitutional by the US District Court for the District of Nebraska, but was overruled by the Eight Circuit Court of Appeals. In fact, similar laws in other states were overturned by federal judges on the basis that they violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. This is actually how most states are being required to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, likely against the wills of their voters, who hold supreme governing authority but delegate it to governments.
Now imagine with me that some federal judiciary ruled that the Nebraska Legislature is, at present, unconstitutional and must revert back to a bicameral system with a separate House of Representatives and Senate. I hope that that idea makes you feel a little uncomfortable. No federal authority can tell state governments exactly how they can govern.
This is the essence of the 10th Amendment to the US Constitution. The federal government only has the powers the Constitution has delegated to it, and state governments have all other powers that they are not prohibited from having by the Constitution. And any powers that state governments do not grant themselves or prohibit from the people are retained by the people. Even the authority to define marriage within their state.
But this is exactly the route that LGBT activist groups take to move their agenda forward. It is a lot easier to convince a few people with a lot of authority than it is to convince a majority of a state to vote otherwise. But what happens when this route is pursued and used to get what they want, it sets some terrifying precedents.
If a federal court can change what a state's constitution says regarding marriage, then there is no logical reason it couldn't change what it says with regards to owning firearms, free speech, or even how the government operates. There is a reason that the state governments and the federal government are separated.
Not even the abolition of slavery, over which the United States fought a civil war, happened without the people having a say in the matter. Leading up to the Civil War, the courts more or less were silent on the matter. The Dred Scott Decision is really the only example I can think of, and it upheld the position of the slave owner. President Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation only freed slaves in areas in active rebellion against the United States not under the control of the Union army. It was a measure of war against the South, which he had the authority to do as commander in chief.
But it was ultimately and finally abolished with the passage of the 13th Amendment to the US Constitution, which had to be ratified by 75% of the states to be put in effect. The people agreed twice with the 13th Amendment - once visa-vie their Congressmen, and the second time visa-vie their state representatives. The people spoke, and slavery was abolished.
I certainly do not think that prohibiting or allowing same-sex marriages is any where near the level that abolishing or upholding slavery was on, but the same process should be followed, especially if the LGBT agenda wants to be seen as more credible. In my opinion, they sound like a bunch of kids that aren't getting what they want, and a throwing tantrums until they get it. I mean of course, that they are going to be loud and obnoxious until they get what they want, no matter the cost. Instead, they need to make an argument that the people can get behind, and change laws that way.
No comments:
Post a Comment