Back to Quack Off
Idaho's Anti-Gay Marriage Amendment is Pretended Law
(and cannot be enacted by
either the state legislature or a 51% majority vote of the people)
Back to the scene
of the crime.
Legislature’s denial of written voluntary association as a basic human right
is tantamount to denying the validity of the state’s own existence through
voluntary association. To refute the very concept of that which brought the
legislature into existence is a contradiction. And an attempt to extend
that non sequitur to the public for a 51% democratic majority vote next
November is sheer folly.
How did we get so
far off track?
legislators have arrived at their ridiculous level of non-understanding of
the successive levels of legal thought discovered in the Age of
Enlightenment by failure to comprehend two basic concepts:
- They erroneously
think the Bill of Rights is a granting document, doling out individual
rights, rather than a prohibitive document, which prohibits infringements
on individual rights (usually by the state), and
- They think the U.S.
is a democracy, characterized by a 51% democratic majority rule for basic
rights, instead of a limited constitutional republic, which protects the
inherent rights of the smallest group possible, the individual.
As Supreme Court
Justice Sandra Day O’Connor correctly reasoned and stated in her magnificent
autobiography, The Majesty of The Law, the U.S. Constitution (which
includes the Bill of Rights) was intended to protect the individual against
mob rule, against those collectives who may disagree with the smallest
minority exercising their inherent rights obtained a priori to the
existence of the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Not understanding these
basic concepts is what leads legislators into their unconstitutional, and
contradictory, activity of trying to establish Pretended Law.
legislators – and legislators from many of our nation’s other states – have
grossly overstepped their constitutional bounds, using their rights of
voluntary association in the legislature to stomp on those same rights of
others. I don’t know which is worse: (1) legislators who think they have
the right to abridge the very same rights by which they have come into
existence, or (2) legislators who are such philosophical cowards that they
claim they are merely extending their Pretended Law to their constituents,
to a mob rule of a 51% Democratic Majority Rule to do the dirty deed for
A third case of bad
reasoning is displayed by those who claim that we don’t need a
constitutional amendment to ban Gay Marriages because the state of Idaho has
already enacted statutes that ban Gay Marriages and civil unions. Whoa,
these people miss the point. An illegal statute that violates basic
individual rights is not a valid reason to either implement or not implement
a constitutional amendment of Pretended Law. That’s like claiming we don’t
need a constitutional amendment to ban freedom of speech because we already
have a lower level statute that bans freedom of speech. Sorry, Clyde, but
parking meter statutes do not trump the Bill of Rights.
So, no matter which
way Idahoans vote for the Pretended Legal Amendment to Ban Gay Marriages
next November, that vote will be unconstitutional and violate the concept of
basic individual rights law which we, as thinking human beings, finally
discovered over three hundred years ago in the Age of Enlightenment. The
freedom of voluntary association, written or verbal – and thus gay marriages
and civil unions -- is an inviolate individual right obtained a priori to
the existence of the U.S. and Idaho Constitutions. The Idaho State
Legislators cannot deny to others the same rights that brought their
“legislative marriage” into existence. Period.
This issue is not
about sex, biology, the Bible, or same-sex marriages; this issue is about
inherent individual rights vs. the tyranny of the majority. – FM Duck
back to top...