Law Making or Law Upholding

Okay, so my mother wrote this. I was supposed to put it up on knol for her, but it’s giving me a hard time. I found this paper to be thought provoking. I wanted to share at least parts of it anyway, and since I need more time to write the final portion of Love Not Hate I figured I’d post this in the mean time. In retrospect mayhaps this will be a good lead in. . .

Law Making or Law Upholding
written by Janet G. Glasgow, July 7, 2008
reproduced with permission

Judges, throughout history, have been entrusted with the duty and responsibility to make fair and impartial decisions according to the laws, traditions and customs of their lands. These arbiters have been men and women of good standing in their communities who cared for the good of the people and the upholding of the law. Their duty has been to be fair and just, while making decisions in keeping with the letter and the spirit of the law. People of honor and wisdom have been chosen for this high office since the beginning of recorded history. These men and women are not lawmakers; but law upholders. No court should take upon itself the legislative duty of making a law, for without the voice of the people being heard by vote, it is the will of the judge and not the will of the people, having had no public debate or consideration; the people only learning of it after the fact.

Unfortunately, judges have begun to make laws that are against the voice of the people. Two such cases have recently occurred in the State of California. On May 16, 2008, the California Supreme Court, proclaimed that the law against same-sex marriage is unconstitutional. This decision was blatantly against the voice of the people who, in 2004, voted to ban same-sex marriage. The second case occurred on February 28, 2008, when a court ruled that all children, ages six to eighteen must attend full-time day school, public or private, or have a tutor who has a state credential for the child’s grade level, thus making home schooling against the law. California Superintendent of Public Instruction, Jack O’Connell, was completely taken by surprise and issued a statement saying that parents would not be prosecuted. Approximately 166,000 children are in home school in California. O’Connel also issued a statement saying that he supports “parental choice when it comes to homeschooling.” According to Brad Dacus, president of the Pacific Justice Institute, “With this case law, anyone in California who is homeschooling without a teaching credential is subject to prosecution for truancy violation, which could require community service, heavy fines and possibly removal of their children under allegations of educational neglect.” This ruling was a total surprise to all home schoolers in the state.(2008). The judge made a ruling in a case that began as a welfare case concerning one family, but now it affects thousands.

The politically correct-minded seem to think that same-sex marriage is a civil rights issue; one that’s time has come. Nothing could be further from the truth. This is an issue of culture and way of life. The culture of the United States has everything to do with families. The family is the smallest unit of society. Embracing the union of men with men and women with women contorts the basic philosophy of a family being a man, a woman and children. Same-sex marriage does not have, nor can it have, this make-up. Some may say that with the high divorce rate in the United States, there are already many families that do not adhere to the above definition. However, even if that is the case, it is not a reason to deliberately destroy this fundamental, unit of society. Having same-sex marriage not only changes the definition of marriage, it also changes the definition of family.

Some of the ramifications of such marriages include these questions: Should same-sex couples be allowed to adopt children when research shows that children are happier and more well adjusted in a family with a father and a mother? What is the responsibility of society to such children? Should a clergyman be forced by law to perform the marriage ceremony of a same-sex couple when his religion is against doing so? Even during wartime, a person may declare himself to be a conscientious objector and be excused from being in the military. Does he have more rights than a clergyman who wishes to be excused from same-sex marriage duty? Must people who have religious convictions be vilified for adhering to their beliefs?

There are those who believe that homosexuality is a sin. It is unnatural and offensive in many belief systems. People having such beliefs should not be viewed as hate-mongers. There are those on the fringes of society who have no tolerance for other lifestyles, but they are in the minority. People who believe that same-sex marriage is not good for society are not bigoted, brainless, or uncaring. They are generally decent, reasonable people with valid concerns about the future in a world where customs, traditions, and laws of society are being uprooted and replaced with laws that will create less freedom for all and will cause much bitterness, distress, and a whirlwind of clashes between the constitutional rights of some people and the tenets of others.

Society should not have to break its own boundaries, change the definition of marriage and family, and make the entire country take on a different national attitude so that a few people can proclaim that they are married; especially when civil unions are already available. Same-sex marriage brings with it a plethora of problems. Same-sex couples want more than to be married. They want to be thought of as normal; that is to say, natural; but what about the rest of society. What does the same-sex couple’s new normality do to the rest of the people. For example: A woman who is concerned that her husband may have an affair, may now not only be concerned about other women but have a new concern that her husband may have a tryst with another man. After all, such a thing is now considered to be normal behavior. A young teenager, confused about his/her sexual feelings may now decide that sorting through his/her feelings is not important. After all, why does it matter, if it is all normal behavior. These are real considerations of real people. Gender confusion in children is of great concern when considering same-sex marriage. The problem is that if we have same sex-marriage, homosexuality is no longer a trait that belongs to a particular group of people; it has been turned into normal behavior for anyone.

Many people send their children to Christian Schools, or other private schools, (even non-christians) because they do not want their children to be subjected to certain ideas that are being taught in the public schools, such as, masturbation is a good thing, the showing of private sexual body parts in middle school as a part of sex education, and that homosexual and bisexual lifestyles are normal and natural. These people have a right to their opinions and are willing to make sacrifices to bring their children up as they see fit. These are not people who hate homosexuals. These are generally good people who care about others, including those who are gay or lesbian. Nevertheless, they wish to have their children taught traditional values, knowing that these children will go into society when they are older and will, they hope, make decisions in a traditional way, while being tolerant of others. These parents have the right to do this. If same-sex marriage is allowed and Christian schools are forced to teach that the homosexual lifestyle is normal, the schools will shut down. Parents will be forced to either have tutors or put their children in home school. For some, this will mean relocating to a home-school-friendly state.

This brings us to the second situation where a judge has taken the law into his own hands without the voice of the people. Home school is a valuable tool in the education sector. It is sometimes not only preferred, but necessary. Having a teaching credential is not a prerequisite for being a good teacher in the home school setting. There are a great many successful home schools in the state of California. Parents do not put their children in home school on a whim. It can be expensive and takes time. Usually, the parents are extremely concerned about the education or environment available in the public school setting. Sometimes parents with concerns about public school do not have the resources to put their child into a private school. There was a superintendent of schools some years ago who would refer students with problems to a Home School Association. In each case, the students did much better academically and socially. The Association had combined weekly meetings and even put on musical plays for family, friends and neighbors.(Glasgow, 1988)

If the education of the child is the first concern, home schooling should be applauded for the success it enjoys. Home schooled college students rank very highly on college qualifying tests. Children returning to public school after being in home school often test at least one or more grades higher than their public school counterparts. “Homeschooled students typically have performed fifteen to thirty percentile points higher than public school students on standardized achievement tests and have been above the norm in social and psychological development” (Ray,2003). They perform well in college, have leadership skills and tend to be critical and independent thinkers. ”Homeschooled students also have tended to be more active in civic and community activities than the norm.”(Smith and Sikkink, 1999).

Making home school illegal when so many families do so well in it is an ignorant thing to do. Making same-sex marriage legal when there are so many destructive consequences is an ignorant thing to do. The courts are overstepping the extent of their authority when they do not know the will of the people or they judge against the will of the people. Perhaps judges do not trust the people to know what is best for themselves. According to Ron Prentice, Chairman of ProtectMarriage.com, “Backers of gay marriage have never secured anything close to a majority of Californians to support their position. They have had to rely on activist judges to do their bidding because voters do not support them. However, the people’s right to vote on critical issues like this is of paramount importance….” (http://proquest.umi.com/)

Justice Marvin Baxter, of the California Supreme Court and dissenter to the legalization of same-sex marriage said that the court overstepped its authority and that changes to marriage laws should be decided by the voters. Do the judges not see where these rulings are leading the nation?

President of the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada, Bruce Clemenger has said, “If marriage is reduced to merely a contract between two people, its distinctiveness will be lost and it will be hard for the government to refuse including other types of relationships.” (2003)

Consider the group called The North America Man/Boy Love Association (NAMBLA). Their resolve is to “end the oppression of men and boys who have freely chosen mutually consenting relationships.” (Radow, 1994). This group claims that it does nothing against the law by making such declarations. (The ACLU agrees, coming to their defense as a free speech issue.) Nevertheless, there have been many criminal cases involving NAMBLA members, including the rape and murder of a ten year old boy. (http://www.thecpac.com/Curleys-v-NAMBLA.html). This group has a political agenda and desires to change the law so that it is no longer against the law for a man to have sex with a consenting underage boy. This organization also publishes newsletters that inform men on how to engage in such activities without getting caught. It should be noted here that NAMBLA is not a mainstream gay-lesbian association. It is being mentioned as an example of political agendas that go too far and would remove safeguards and civil rights of some in favor of others, but is not indicative of the feelings of the general homosexual population; many of whom are appalled at such sentiments.

The California Supreme Court should realize that legalizing same-sex marriage is the beginning of the criminalization of religion in the United States. This has the potential to divide the nation and do great harm. For example, Stephen Boissoin, a pastor in Canada, was ordered by the Alberta Human Rights Commission to stop expressing his views on homosexuality. He cannot write of it on the internet, speak of it from the church pulpit, or in any way make his feelings known. He was fined seven thousand dollars to be paid to a homosexual activist. This occurred because he wrote a letter to the editor of The Red Deer Advocate paper. Boissoin wrote, “Children as young as five and six years of age are being subjected to psychologically and physiologically damaging pro-homosexual literature and guidance in the public school system, all under the fraudulent guise of equal rights.”(Waggoner,2008) When a person cannot respectfully speak their own opinions, the courts have gone too far. Boissoin maintains that he has no hate nor malice towards homosexuals.

“The dissent by Justice Martha Sosman in the decision of the Massachusetts high court that legalized same-sex marriage in that state makes a societal argument without specifying the harm that would occur from this change. Asserting the a priori importance of marriage as an institution, she questions whether the burden of proof that this would be harmless has been met. Her analysis can be seen as an example of precautionary principle, which states that if an action or policy might cause severe or irreversible harm to the public, in the absence of a scientific consensus that harm would not ensue, the burden of proof falls on those who would advocate taking the action. “(2003)

Justice Sosman was correct in her assessment that the burden of proof, that same-sex marriage is harmless, has not been met. There may be a chain reaction of loss of civil rights if decisions that go against the will of the people are not overturned. For example, in 2002, prostitution became legal in Germany. Today, there are women who are in need of public assistance who are being told that they cannot continue to receive assistance because they refused to take a job at a brothel. The job is prostitution but since it is legal, it is in their government system and as a legally listed job it must be taken or financial assistance is denied.(Chapman, 2005). This is what happens when poor judgment is used in creating or interpreting laws. Civil rights are lost.

The two laws in question are related. Both are an attack on the family as we know it. There are already cases in Massachusetts concerning the teaching of children that homosexual behavior is normal. One case involves families whose children are ages four through seven. These children are being given books and are being read to from books such as King and King, in which a prince goes to look for a princess to marry. Finding none to his liking, he finds another prince and marries him. The parents have Judeo-Christian beliefs and, as the introduction to the case states, they “tolerate and respect all people but wish to teach their faith to their children at their own pace, and in their own way.” (http://www.lexingtoncares.org/lawsuit2006-04-27//lawsuitspdf)

Laws should not undermine parental rights to teach their children nor should they infringe on religious freedom. The voice of the people is usually the clearest and most reasonable voice. There are no hidden agendas; no deals made, no radical groups constantly lobbying. There are only the individual citizens, who know what kind of country they want their children and grandchildren to live in. These are the people; the same ones who want to form a more perfect union, establish justice, ensure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare and ensure the blessings of liberty for themselves and their posterity. These are the people who must have their voices listened to by those whom they have trusted to judge fairly and uphold the law with pure intent. No court should make decisions against the voiced will of the people, nor should it make policy without the voice of the people being heard. The people should be trusted since the government is of, by, and for the people.

References

Chapman, Clare, (2005). ‘If you don’t take a job as a prostitute, we can stop your benefits,’ retrieved June 30, 2008, from http://www.telegraph./co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/germany/1482371/’
‘if .you.don’t.take.a.job.as.a.prostitute.%2c.-we.can.stop.your.benefits.’html

Clemenger, Bruce, (2003), retrieved on July 1,2008 from http://www.AlbertNohler.com

Glasgow, Janet, (1988), Personal Journal, p.104

Radow, Roy, (1994), retrieved June 28,2008, from http://www.qrd.org/orgs/NAMBLA/

Ray, B.D., (2003) Does home schooling promote the public good?-Yes. The CQ Researcher online, 13,25-48. retrieved Sept. 24, 2005, from http://library.cqpress.com/cqresearcher/cqresrre2003011700.

Smith, C. and Sikkink, D. (1999). Is Private school privatizing/ First Things, 92 (4), 16-20, retrieved Sept. 24, 2005, from http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft9904/smithlhtml. Article ID:3137

Sosman, Martha, (2003), transcript of dissent, retrieved June28, 2008, blogspot.com

Waggoner,Tim (2008) Alberta Pastor Fined $7,000. and Ordered to Publicly Apologize and Remain Silent on Homosexuality. retrieved July7,2008 from http:www.lifesitenews.com/ldnn/2008/jun/08060902.html

Recently:

• Out of the Mouth of Babes
• Hazel’s Talk on Jesus always obeying Heavenly Father
• Lazy Game Design
• Teacher-centered vs Child-centered Classrooms
• An Aesthetic Experience
• The Looking Glass Wars – Arch Enemy
• Whatever You Want.
• Woof.
• Facebook for me
• What Hazel wrote on the computer.