Last week a judge in Nebraska tossed out a law that banned same-sex marriages. As could be expected the religious right-wing nut zealots went off the deep end. They accused the judge of judicial activism and legislating from the bench. The right-wing nuts claimed that the judge had no right striking this unfair law down because the law was the popular will of the people, therefore legal. Since it is the popular will of the people to discriminate against one group, the judge was not right in ruling the way he did. What these right-wing nuts don't seem to understand is that it is the judicial branch's job to strike down unfair laws. When the state or Federal legislatures pass and the governor or President signs discriminatory law, it is the judicial branch's job to rule the laws unconstitutional and thus unfair. "But it is the will of the people," the right wing nuts shout. Just because something is popular does not make it right. At this time in history, it is popular to discriminate against homosexuals. This does not make it right. At one time it was popular in the United States to keep Africans as slaves. Did this make slavery right? It was also popular to deny voting rights to women. Was this right? In Nazi Germany, it was popular to discriminate against Jews, steal their property, and send them to concentration camps. Was this right? It was the popular will of the people. At one time it was popular to deny voting rights to blacks. Was this right? Just because it is popular to discriminate does not make it right.
Now, what is right is not popular. It is the judge's job to decide if laws are fair or not. This is not activism. This is common sense. It is the judge's job to stop discrimination. The right wing nuts want the judicial branch to follow the popular will of the people. This would make the judicial branch irrelevant. Our country wouldn't need courts if laws were passed based on the popular will of the people. Courts have to make decisions based on right and wrong, fair and unfair, even if the decision is unpopular. That means banning discrimination against homosexuals.
What is popular is not always right; what is right is not always popular.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Is it right to deny children the teachings of creation, just because it threatens those with improper data or opposing belief system? Also what constitutes a religious nut? Someone expressing their views based on unfounded theories? Or a belief that conflicts with the viewpoints of others and is critisized because Creation cannot be disproven.
Of course it is not right to deny children the teachings of creation. There is a place to teach creation and that is in the church and Sunday school. I asked a science teacher friend of mine if she was going to teach the chapter on evolution in her 8th grade science class. She said no she wasn't because she thought it was too controversial. I did a little figuring and if a child goes to Sunday school and church every Sunday, that comes out to about 102 hours of being taught creation and other Bible stories or 4 days 6 hours per year. Then if the child attends for 12 years you get 51 days or so of learning about creation etc. That is a lot more learning about creation etc in church than children get in public school. So, my point being, children learn more about creation etc in church than they ever do learning about evolution. The church is the place to learn about creation and religion as they are better prepared and understnad it better and the public school is the best place for teaching science. There is more to science than evolution and there is more to religion than creation stories.
Post a Comment