PETA Thinks It's Figured Out a Way to Convince Men to Go Vegan
Who Will Have the Last Word at Next Week's Trump v. Biden Debate?...
We Now Know What's to Blame for That 911 Outage in Massachusetts
Voters Are Turning Against This Democrat Governor
New York Now Requires Paid Breaks For Breastfeeding Employees
Progressive Mayor's Recall Effort Receives Twice the Number of Signatures Needed to Oust...
GOP Lawmakers Demand Answers From Mayorkas After ISIS-Linked Illegals Successfully Crossed...
CBS News Ratioed Into Oblivion for Posts Providing Cover for White House on...
An Illegal Alien Was Charged With Killing a Maryland Woman. Here’s How the...
Bowman Apologizes As 'Propaganda' Remarks Come Back to Haunt Him for Primary
Surprise: AOC Doesn't Seem to Understand How PACs Work
The Story About the Illegal Alien Who Allegedly Raped a 13-Year-Old in NYC...
New Poll: Trump Is Still Up in Key Swing States
DOJ Omits One Inconvenient Detail About the Club Q Shooter
Here’s How This California School District Trains Staff About Illegal Immigration

Oligarchy Does Not = "Liberty"

Bob Barr is running for president as part of the Libertarian party, so of course it is necessary for him to find a way to approve of the California judicial diktat on gay marriage

He's chosen a lame argument, however.  His assertion that such matters are state issues, and that what the California state supreme court did is therefore A-OK, confuses -- out of either ignorance or disingenuousness -- two distinct issues: Federalism and separation of powers.

Sure, federalism principles hold that state issues should be decided on the state level (setting aside, for purposes of this discussion, the implications of the "full faith and credit clause" -- the potential impact of which justified the creation of DOMA).  

But separation of powers principles require that each branch of government adhere to its own role.  As every schoolchild should know, the role of the judiciary is not to make the law; it is to interpret it.  Here,  judges created new legal rights and obligations that are not clearly appearing in (or at least obviously implied by) a constitution, doing so under the guise of "interpreting the law." 

That means the court has engaged in a quintessentially legislative function (i.e., making the law).  On top of it, given that this legal right/obligation was not only
not recognized by the people of the state, but was recently expressly rejected by them -- and, in fact, runs counter to the understanding of marriage for centuries -- it is an act of unbridled arrogance . . . even lawlessness.

It's tempting for those who see themselves as libertarians to approve this ruling, on the reasoning that the state shouldn't be involved in marriage anyway, or some such rationale.  In truth, though, those devoted to the cause of liberty should be the first to protest it -- as should every freedom-loving person, whether or not s/he supports the cause of gay marriage.

That's because, if a largely unaccountable black-robed obligarchy can create legal rights and obligations out of whole cloth against the expressed will of the people, haven't we the people handed them a blank check to rule over us, guided only by their own whim?

Join the conversation as a VIP Member


Trending on Townhall Videos