C.G.Ayling

Tag: US Supreme Court

  • Nothing ever changes.

    But it should.

    I have come to the inescapable conclusion there is no longer anything supreme about the US Supreme Court. To me they are a bunch of bought and paid-for moral cowards who are more interested in the letter of flawed laws than they are in justice.

    Justice isn’t about technical details, justice is about what is right and what is wrong. And what is right, is equal protection under the law.

    Consider how the supreme court have ruled that the police do not have a constitutional duty to protect the people. According to their understanding, the duty of the police is the enforcement of laws.

    The enforcement of laws…

    That sounds entirely reasonable, doesn’t it? Only on its surface. Only if the laws are reasonable. Only if the laws are fair. Only if the laws are just. Too many “onlys”. What about when laws aren’t reasonable, fair, or just? Far too many laws are not reasonable, fair, or just. How can they be when they are designed to maintain the status-quo, and the status-quo is anything but reasonable, fair, and just?

    What prompted this post? A shocking statistic I heard this morning…

    The approval rating of Congress, that far from illustrious body of people we entrust with writing our laws, is currently at 15%.

    Think about 15%, then think about how reasonable our laws are likely to be, then think about the duty of the police being the enforcement of those unreasonable laws, and then think about how nothing ever changes.

    I believe things can change, but people must be willing to stand up and be counted. These posts are my way of standing up. What is yours?

    Nothing ever changes…

    Almost two years ago I reflected on the subject of same-sex marriage. The supreme court played a role in that post as well. I find it rather sad that my predictions on their ruling proved accurate. Instead of addressing, and then righting a social wrong, they chose to side-step the issue. What is the social wrong to which I refer? Equal access to marriage for all consenting adults, regardless of gender. Back in 1967 a different, far more courageous Supreme Court addressed the matter of equal access to marriage, regardless of color.

    Yes, for all of you who just shook your heads in disbelief, it was once illegal to marry a person of a different race. Miscegenation was a crime. The moral crime is that such a word even exists.

    Nothing ever changes, until we make it.

    What exactly did I find shocking about the statistic stating how a mere 15% of people approve of Congress? That the number is as high as fifteen. That 15% of the population are gullible enough to believe Congress actually works for them is just sad.

    Earlier in this post I said that what is right, is equal protection under the law. Who am I kidding? Laws should be written with the best interests of the people at heart. Instead they are written to suit amoral, wealthy corporations such as Monsanto and big oil.  When that happens equal protection becomes a meaningless concept.

    Fact. The vast majority of laws are not about justice, they are about property.

    There is an adage which states, “Possession is nine tenths of the law”.  Unlike the linked WikiPedia article, I understand that adage to mean over ninety percent of laws are about who owns what and how they get to keep it.

    It seems to me that property has very little to do with justice.  We should all be working to improve the lot of humanity, yet instead we’re working to maintain the status-quo. It is time for us to stop working.

  • Same-Sex Marriage.

    The US Supreme Court is currently considering cases regarding a touchy, emotive subject. Namely the question of the veracity of same-sex marriage.  Unfortunately, I don’t do well when I’m troubled by thoughts of injustice, and this subject is rampant with such thoughts.

    Until relatively recently, my view was that the word “marriage” should be reserved for the specific union between a man and a woman.  {For those interested in my change of heart, my post, “Marriage,  a word’s meaning” provides a little background.}

    Why did I change my mind?  Because of prompting from my youngest daughter {thirteen at the time}, who expressed shock I could be opposed to same-sex couples.  I corrected her by stating I had never held that bigoted viewpoint, then went on to explain that we were talking about the meaning of a root word, namely marriage.

    Though I wish I could remember Julia’s exact words, I cannot, so here’s the gist of how she prompted my change of heart, “That doesn’t make sense, dad.  Words change their meaning all the time.  Just because people in the past were ignorant and had the wrong ideas doesn’t mean we’re stuck with what they thought something meant.  I think marriage is for couples who love each other and intend to be with each other forever.  What do you think?”

    How is it that the young see the truth of things so clearly?  Perhaps it is because they haven’t yet been trained to the biases of whatever society they dwell in?

    What could I do but agree?  Julia’s definition of “marriage” cuts to the heart of the matter.  Marriage is not about sex, or about gender.  Marriage, is about commitment.  No one, neither individual or government, has the right to deny any committed couple their chance at the permanent bond of marriage.

    So, since I’ve come to terms with my change of heart, why am I troubled by thoughts of injustice?  Simple.  Because I fear the US Supreme Court is about to allow a massive, long running injustice go unaddressed… or at best inadequately addressed.

    Sadly, the USA seems to be a country where the courts are less concerned with justice than they are in following the letter of flawed laws.  In reflecting on the technicalities of the matter of same-sex marriage, Justice Sonia Sotomayor seems to be following that precedent.  She asked this question, “If the issue is letting the states experiment and letting the society have more time to figure out its direction, why is taking a case now the answer?”

    Allow me, a gravely troubled citizen, to answer that question.  Because everyone deserves equal access to justice now, not at some unspecified time in the future.

    Many of the original European immigrants came to America to escape religious persecution.  Limiting marriage benefits and responsibility exclusively to heterosexual couples has no basis other than religious or politically motivated dogma.  How has this country been so sorely turned about that where it once held separation of Church and State as sacrosanct, it now seeks to entrench religious persecution into law?

    I don’t do well when I’m troubled by thoughts of injustice…  Withholding access to marriage equality from any committed couple, regardless of gender, is injustice.  As a strictly heterosexual male already past my silver wedding anniversary, and looking forward to my gold, I can only imagine how same sex couples denied access to equal rights feel.

    That very imagining troubles me.

    Same-sex couples are victims of persecution, oppression, and injustice.

    That needs to end, and it needs to end now, not at some other undetermined time in the future.

    The following is a quote from my work, Malmaxa. “Were those denied justice ever satisfied with their lot?”  Since the answer to that question is a resounding, “No!” we should not be surprised when same-sex couples aren’t satisfied with their lot.  Indeed, no moral person should be content to remain silent in any society that denies equal justice to all its citizens, regardless of gender, color, caste, creed, sexual orientation, origin, or religion.

    The time for silent social conscience on this issue is long since passed. Now is the time for social activism.

    {04/14/13 – further steps on this journey can be found here.}