Proposition 8: are the US still a democracy?

Mundabor's Blog

I generally do not indulge in such rhetorical questions, but this time the question doesn’t appear very rhetorical.
For you non-Americans, the story in very short format. In 2000, the citizens of California vote in a referendum a proposition (“Proposition 22”) to ban homosexual so-called marriages. In 2008, the California Supreme Court strikes down the referendum decision because “unconstitutional”, that is: the court decides that the people are naughty and therefore their will doesn’t count.

The citizens of California then proceed to held a second referendum on Election Day 2008 to have homo-marriages banned (“Proposition 8”) and give it a majority for the second time; this time the approved proposal is that the ban be inserted in the Californian Constitution so that the judges of the California Supreme Court will not be able to play God or to decide that they are naughty and therefore their will doesn’t count, again

View original post 708 more words

Posted on June 27, 2015, in Traditional Catholicism. Bookmark the permalink. 6 Comments.

  1. US democracy is a big joke! Totally deceptive. George Washington is crying in the grave now.

  2. Agreeing with you and referring to the question in your title, is the US still a democracy, the answer is No. (In just one issue, our state, as well as California and others states have each more than once voted to ban homosexual “marriages.”)

    And in your first line, you observe that this is becoming more than a rhetorical question. Yes, I fear that this has indeed become a practical question. (There are florists, cake bakers, bed-and-breakfast owners, teachers and doctors who have lost their livelihoods, including recently a renowned urologist in a renowned Boston hospital who was summarily dismissed after including in a lecture his observations of the physical damage that perverted sexual acts do to the human body. No truth allowed, apparently.)

    Practically speaking, I see a huge Litmus Test coming for each of us from our secular Rulers.

    I have no secular authority over the Supreme Court judges; however, they have no moral authority over me.

  3. They are supposed to be a Republic with a a Rule of Law, meaning that objective unchangeable truths, in fact and essence, recognisable by natural reason, are upheld and vindicated by the agencies of the state (on behalf, and for the common good of, the Nation). The Law of the Rule of Law is the Natural Law that exists prior to all man-made law and government, with which the latter must comply. This means each state and the Federation of States are bound to recognise and uphold marriage in its objective truth, as something that cannot and must not purport to be, changed.

    • Apart from natural law, I find it absurd that “human rights” can be invented that never existed before. This way, absolutely everything is at the disposal of judges, they must simply decide which new “human right” applies.


  4. Human rights are not human rights if they are conferred by state or interstate government. True human rights are universal and infinite and pre-date all government and man-made laws. They can not be conferred, simply recognised, upheld and vindicated – or as we see increasingly under our current global tyranny rejected. Those who fight the tyranny in relation to, example, abortion, euthanasia, sodomy, state abduction or indoctrination or abuse of children and destruction of families, are persecuted with zeal (while most flee and hide rather than aid the persecuted so as to avoid persecution themselves even whie endangering their souls.

    The next general Rally for Life in Ireland is next Saturday. As per past 33 years (and this has got much worse in recent years) all but a few will refuse to stand against baby murder in public for fear of the consequences of losing “the respect of men”.

%d bloggers like this: