Social Commentary - Sexualism
Sexualists among the populace are disguised as uncorrupted citizens and accepted by most, yet until now were denied existence by law. For a just cause the judicial branch of our government holds its position to the thorny question of rights normally given mankind and to a public that demands fairness with those who engage in questionable behavior.
A singular group which doesn’t represent the whole of American society nor espouses the separation of the same demands for itself exclusive treatment before conviction and again, afterwards.
Once, the Supreme Court was correct in judging sexualists as having no more rights than any other citizen. Its view was one of individual responsibility toward oneself and others. For the courts to adjudicate otherwise would have been to define a portion of American society as exclusive, which would have been against the equal protection clause of the constitution. Today however, a reversion of common sense has possessed the court and a seemingly leftist philosophy emerged as politically correct thinking overtook what once was a body that could advise the people in the weightier matters of the law.
The stepping stones of aberrant law will now be much closer, as will other forms similar to it. If other groups were to impose their demands on the court and insist on their portion of the law, would it be fair to render justice? One can see where this would go if it hasn’t happened already. Would American society tolerate such a scenario? It appears in some way it has. We see an acceptance of perverse judicial thinking and amoral jurisprudence as becoming common law effecting personal morality. Written law has become antiquated and to be challenged rather than respected and obeyed.
Vices with their penchant to cloud moral issues, define a nation rather than the people defining the law that seeks to protect them. The psychology of the sexualists is not one of inclusion but of politics; one of democracy. Should their philosophy succeed, it would place them above any law and make them statist and exclusive; thus superfluous with a guarantee few others would have. All well and good for them, until a challenging group were to come along and stake out claims for the same territory; but there is only so much democracy available and competition for it remains at a premium.
The judicial response must therefore be to place all human behaviors into the same category, as deemed acceptable by the judicial oligarchs. The courts` vanity is its vice as it then legislates from a proletarian view in an attempt to define moral behavior. Today, the perceived advance into this kind of thinking is considered an ascent into reason, but not long ago it was seen as a descent into madness, a slide into socialism with its attendant chaos and melancholy as no one is justified but all are placated.
Myopic visions of grandeur replace dimensional views when one covers the mind with prejudice in order to see with the eyes that which is distorted by men. Morality is not subservient to the court. Its imposition on men is one of society. The more society becomes a victim of the court, the more it climbs away from moral behavior and succumbs to the heights of delusion where the bottom appears up and the top appears the bottom with its reality clearly in focus though misinterpreted.
The Supreme Courts` trespass upon morality is facetious at best. The sexualists claim and demand is already guaranteed by the constitution. The court’s usurpation of its position in tri-partite government shows that it has reserved for itself authorities not found in that document. Perhaps its power comes from the politics of public opinion, fickle as it is. One would think the American people would expect and demand its courts to know what function is lawful and act accordingly, perhaps they don’t.
The sexualists have chosen the court to be the arbiters of our national and personal morality by virtue of judicial tyranny imposed on those in opposition to their view; they understand the true power of the court and use it effectively. Though in the minority, the court grants them majority status because the court itself is out of step with its responsibilities and principles, it tries to rationalize its obligation to the constitution while pandering to a group who’s only claim to power is the courts blessing in all they want to do.
The servile nature of the Supreme Court is fixed by the constitution. It cannot be subject to the needs of the public. Only to that which the law will allow, that is to say, the foundational rules of the republic. Special interest litigation is not an obligation, but something left to other nations still going through the tests of conscience; to those who have yet to understand that freedom and liberty are separate and distinct issues.
Much as the sexualists would have us believe otherwise, it is for the citizenry of our country to decide the issues of freedom from behavior, while the court is left with liberty as an attending restriction applied to itself.