Living In An Upside-Down World

It is proving difficult to predict the future. I suppose this has always been the case, but we are living in a time where it has become increasingly important to at least try to foresee what is coming and where some things may lead.

For instance, did anyone foresee the current situation where a public school nurse cannot give your child an aspirin for her headache without parental permission, but that same 15-year-old girl can get an abortion without her parent's knowledge? I may be way off track here, but I think there is something wrong with this picture.

The problem is, we see so many situations that seem to be upside down nowadays.

We have folks who have suddenly gained new rights not found in the Bill of Rights or the Constitution. That may not be all bad, but it does seem a little upside down that these new rights appear to take precedence over the rights American citizens are given in the Bill of Rights. So we have, as an example, a situation where a Christian bakery is forced to bake a cake for a same-sex wedding or face being penalized out of business if it refuses.

I read an article the other day about an ordained minister who runs a wedding chapel who had been ordered to officiate at gay weddings. He did not know what he was going to do, but he was certainly not going to obey such an order. The fact that he and his wife charge for their services at their chapel brings them into the business world -- where one is forbidden to discriminate. My point is that very few people foresaw such a situation back before gay marriage was made legal by court order. For that matter, who foresaw that the courts would take the place of state legislatures or propositions on state ballots in deciding the will of the people? I wonder how many times in the past 20 years popular laws that have been voted in by a majority of the citizenry have been ruled unconstitutional by the courts? It seems to be a recurring theme.

The pattern seems to be that a state or two decides to confer rights on a certain group (marriage for gays) or to legalize something (like marijuana, for instance). Other states then pass laws either agreeing with these states or in opposition to what would amount to a new right. Or, sometimes, a proposition is placed on a state's ballot where citizens can vote their conscience on the matter at hand. In the case of gay marriage, many states allowed their citizens to vote and traditional marriage was supported by large majorities. Then along comes a federal judge and strikes down these new state laws as unconstitutional. The next thing you know, the Supreme Court refuses to hear the state's appeal and the lower court ruling stands. Or the appeals process wends its way through the courts until it reaches the Supreme Court. A ruling is made and, voila, a new right is born -- or not, as the case may be. So then all the states that have laws contrary to this ruling are considered out of line with the law of the land and are now expected to conform. This is what we call the rule of law, which is supposed to be better than the rule of men. However, there is no guarantee that the rule of law always results in a better national character. It has everything to do with how the judges themselves interpret the Constitution and its role in our national life.

It has gotten to the point that, when I hear someone say it ought to be left up to each state to decide, I know it is just a matter of time before a federal judge will issue a ruling that trumps what the states are doing and establishes a new right or law at the federal level. Nevertheless, that is where some of our politicians are right now on gun control. They are taking the position that it is up to each state to decide. I believe this is an established path to a federal ruling that will be contrary to the 2nd Amendment. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has already ruled that Californians do not have a constitutional right to carry a concealed weapon.

On the other hand, states like Colorado can pass a law legalizing marijuana and the feds leave them alone even though, at the federal level, the sale and possession of marijuana is still against the law. In other states, such as Oregon, we see laws legalizing assisted suicide. The feds have done nothing about this law, although it goes against established federal law. So, it would seem that when it comes to more conservative laws such as those supporting traditional marriage or the right to life for the unborn, the federal courts are fairly quick to over-rule state laws, while more liberal laws are left to the states to decide.

Again, there seems to be something wrong with this picture.

Sam Byrnes is a Gentry, Ark., resident and weekly contributor to the Westside Eagle Observer, which serves Gravette, Decatur and Gentry. He may be contacted by email at [email protected]. Opinions expressed are those of the author.

Religion on 07/14/2016