The recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions regarding homosexuality have NOTHING to do with the Constitution and EVERYTHING to do with judicial tyranny. Where, under the constitution, do nine judges get to allow a lower court to disregard a vote of the California electorate? Where does it permit the Court to say Congress and the President did something wrong when they reserved Federal benefits for man-woman marriages as in the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA)?

As a Constitutional republic, every U.S. citizen — no matter what their status — is supposed to live under it and by the same rules. In the early days of the republic, anti-Federalist Robert Yates, himself a judge, predicted the Supreme Court would become a tyranny. Why? Because it was beyond the control “both of the people and the legislature” and not subject to being “corrected by any power above.” By contrast, all other branches of the government are subject to checks by the electorate, the veto pen, or the impeaching power of Congress.

Yates opined that when constitutional grounds for rulings were absent, which is certainly the case with ‘gay marriage,’ the judges would simply create grounds “by their own decisions.” They would thus make law, interpreting the meanings of vague clauses or the ‘spirit’ of the Constitution as justification. The DOMA decision illustrates Yates’ historic concern perfectly: the Court went all the way back to its 2003 decision in Lawrence v. Texas; some historic precedent! He further predicted the Supreme Court would then pile rulings on top of rulings through precedents, forcing its will in a “silent and imperceptible manner,” as opposed to the public clamor and debate associated with politics. When Alexander Hamilton, in rebuttal, said the Supreme Court would be “the least dangerous branch” he wildly missed the mark.

When the Constitution was signed, every state regarded sodomy as a crime. There is no evidence that even one of the signers of the Constitution believed, nor do any words in the Constitution even suggest, that those who practice homosexuality should be able to ‘live proud,’ much less ‘marry’ another aficionado or two. The signers believed that homosexuality was so socially disruptive it should be criminalized. Liberal Thomas Jefferson, a key architect of the Constitution and at times fairly anti-religious, advocated mutilating both men and women who engaged in homosexuality.

A few of the signers might have considered homosexuals ‘mentally disturbed’ since the ‘insanity defense’ was part of common law. But the idea that the Constitution prevented ‘the people’ from protecting themselves against embrace of homosexuality by the ruling class or other factions would have seemed absurd. Yet that is precisely how the Supreme Court has ruled in striking down 1992’s Amendment 2 in Colorado (preventing homosexuals from getting local governments to give them superior rights), the 1996 congressional Defense of Marriage Act (preventing federal benefits to homosexual couples), or 2008’s Proposition 8 in California (denying marriage to those of the same sex).

As Justice Scalia pointed out, the U.S. Supreme court is supposed to settle disputes between actual parties, not function as a Guru that settles philosophical disputes — in this case about homosexuality. Yet five lawyers trained in logic — but not in running a society — discarded human history and the admonitions of all the major religions in favor of those whose sexual practices spread disease and grief rather than create babies.

James Madison, the Constitution’s primary author, opined:

“The preservation of a free Government requires not merely, that the metes and bounds which separate each department of power be invariably maintained; but more especially that neither of them be suffered to overleap the great Barrier which defends the rights of the people. The Rulers who are guilty of such an encroachment, exceed the commission from which they derive their authority, are Tyrants. The People who submit to it are governed by laws made neither by themselves nor by an authority derived from them, and are slaves (1785).”

Perhaps a touch of hyperbole, but true nonetheless. Individuals and societies have the God-given right to self-defense — a right that a majority of the Supreme Court cancelled for ‘the people’ of the whole country regarding DOMA and ‘the people’ of California with Amendment 8. By these court decisions, we, our children, and grandchildren are being subjected to the desires of the sexually disturbed. Not only do the proclivities of our new masters not result in children, but many of our sons and grandsons will be sodomized as a result of homosexuality being protected and elevated to the same stature as heterosexuality.

Thirty years ago, FRI warned that homosexuality, not AIDS, was the greater problem, and so it has been. FRI is concerned that these Supreme Court decisions are preparing the way for the reintroduction of pederasty, to the detriment of our children and especially our sons.

Through Social Security and Medicare — among other programs — and the fact that your Social Security taxes are used to pay for the previous generation’s welfare and not your own personal retirement, the U.S. socializes our work and earnings, sharing it with the childless — whether their childlessness was voluntary or not. Just a hundred years ago, your comfort in old age depended upon your own children and grandchildren. Nowadays, American law makes it a single’s ‘right’ to use the labor of others’ children in his old age. And the trend toward greater ‘singleness’ is accelerating. In our time, the pill, easy abortion, the emphasis upon higher education, and female careerism weigh against having children. The West as a whole is already in a demographic crisis, and the U.S. is moving down the same road.

Unlike ancient Greece, where custom forced even men consumed by homosexual desire to marry and have children, or ancient Rome, where there were periods you could not inherit without having a child, America has a long tradition of voluntarism regarding children. Unleashing homosexuality — indeed, giving it special legal and social protections — is new territory. As these Supreme Court marriage decisions ‘sink into’ social consciousness, what will happen? Will the birth rate go further south? Will more seek the honor and benefits of engaging in homosexuality?

Justice Anthony Kennedy’s majority ruling against DOMA used the word “dignity” ten times, “worthiness” four times, and invoked the terms “second-class” and “second-tier.” The Constitution uses none of these terms, nor does the Bill of Rights. Freedoms in the Bill of Rights include those of religion, speech, and association; nowhere is it assured that you will be accorded ‘dignity’ for your preferred sex practices. The 1948 United Nations Declaration of Universal Human Rights likewise protects freedom of speech, association, and religion but nowhere suggests a right to ‘dignity’ for homosexual acts (although the Obama administration is trying to ‘correct’ this U.N. ‘oversight’). Only protection for sexual activity that produces children is afforded. Thus “men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family.… The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society.”

When about 50 gay activist leaders met in Chicago in 1970 they looked to emulate what Black civil rights had accomplished between 1955 and 1964. The rapidity with which homosexuality has managed to become the ‘civil rights issue’ of our time testifies to the power of having academia, the media, and an American President on your side, not to mention a majority of the Supreme Court. In particular, the Court had already laid the groundwork for its recent decisions when it ruled that “Private, consensual sexual intimacy between two adult persons of the same sex may not be punished by the State.” Now it must be accorded ‘dignity’ as well.

Was every act of rectal sex that transmitted HIV ‘dignified’ because both adults wanted the experience? Most prostitution is probably heterosexual (and consensual), but a significant fraction is homosexual. Is a prostitute’s behavior ‘dignified’ if it is with a person of their sex (i.e., homosexual) and undignified (and worthy of criminal sanction) if not? For the sake of ‘dignity’ and avoiding ‘second-class’ status, the Supreme Court has decreed that society — we the taxpayers — must not only absorb the $700,000 estimated cost of each HIV infection, but also accept the realities of a devalued institution of marriage. Currently, in those states or countries with gay marriage, less than 10% of homosexuals have, or likely will, get married. But their access to children has been greatly increased. Say hello to the new tyranny!

Homosexual Rape at Core of Zimmerman Trial

About ten times a year across the English-speaking world, a boy is raped and killed by a male homosexual. While fairly rare, the seriousness of this reality apparently lay at the core of the George Zimmerman trial in Florida. President Obama joined the chorus of media figures talking about the ‘need for a racial conversation’ because Trayvon Martin was black and Zimmerman wasn’t. But much speculation about the motives of Trayvon (he was casing the area looking for a place to rob) or Zimmerman (he was a cop ‘wanna be;’ he was a racist looking for a Black victim) fails to account for why Trayvon apparently attacked Zimmerman.

An alternative motive was noted by Rush Limbaugh (July 16), in the account given by Rachel Jeantel, the friend who was talking to Trayvon on his cellphone during his encounter with Zimmerman. What Rachel claimed she said to the 17 year-old accounts very well for why Trayvon attacked Zimmerman — and it had nothing to do with race.

Here’s what Jeantel said on CNN (July 16):

MORGAN: But you — but you felt that there was no doubt in your mind from what Trayvon was telling you on the phone about the creepy ass cracka and so on, that he absolutely believed that George Zimmerman, this man, you didn’t know who he was at the time, but this man, was pursuing him?

JEANTEL: Yes.

MORGAN: And he was freaked out by it?

JEANTEL: Yes. Definitely after I say may be a rapist, for every boy, for every man, every — who’s not that kind of way, seeing a grown man following them, would they be creep out? So you have to take it — as a parent, when you tell your child, when you see a grown person following you, run away, and all that. Would you go stand there? You going to tell your child stand there? If you tell your child stand there, we’re going to see your child on the news for missing person.

Adults are influenced by what someone on the phone tells them, 17 year-olds much more so. It may have been enough to cause Trayvon to take action.

Marriage Dying in the United States

The latest trends bode ill for U.S. marriage, regardless of the Supreme Court’s recent gay marriage decisions. In 2010, about half of women cohabited and about a quarter married as their first sexual union. About a third of the cohabitations led to eventual marriage and about half of the ~43% of births outside of marriage occurred to cohabiting women.[1]NHSR:2013

America is rapidly becoming Sweden in its sexual unions. And marriage is increasingly a minority choice. Among the things this portends: 1) fewer children living with a mother and father and more kids ‘doing poorly’ socially and in school; 2) less commitment in sexual relationships; 3) a lower lifespan (due to separations and less family cohesion); and 4) a much less stable society.

Our society has yet to learn how to successfully live with ‘the pill’ and easy abortions.