Black Day in Arizona: One Judge Throws out 1.2 Million Votes for Marriage

Balderdash!

Tyranny!

The out of control, tyrannical, activist courts are … out of control, tyrannical and activist again!

Voters, you’ve been had!

U.S. District Court Judge John Sedwick has thrown out all the 2008 votes that enacted a state constitutional marriage amendment recognizing marriage as the union of one man and one woman. He ruled that a recent decision by the Ninth Circus appeals court to redefine marriage applies to Arizona.

This is un-American. Arizonans should be outraged!

There is no place in a court of law for activists like Judge Sedwick or any of the other judicial activists who have been destroying marriage in recent months by overturning the will of millions of Americans who defined marriage in fair and honest elections. These judges need to be impeached or voted out.

What will follow is blatant fascism by homosexual activists and their friends in the political party they’ve captured – the Democratic Party. Christians and non-Christians alike who define marriage as one man and one woman will be punished merely for disagreeing with same-sex “marriage” and special rights for people struggling with same-sex attraction and gender confusion.

We are already seeing this all across the country. And this is why the Arizona Legislature passed 1062 earlier this year to strengthen protections for Arizonans who don’t want to be forced to endorse behavior they disapprove of. Of course, we remember that homosexual pressure groups, along with their cowardly media friends running cover for them, intimidated the bejabbers out of Governor Jan Brewer and stampeded her into vetoing the bill.

With the latest activist antics in Judge Sedwick’s court, we can now expect people to lose their jobs over refusal to perform same-sex weddings. Photographers, florists, bakers, and others involved in wedding venues can now be severely punished and harassed by left-wing local and state office holders for not agreeing to endorse the message of same-sex marriage. It’s happened from the Atlantic coast to Hawaii. Why wouldn’t it happen here?

A run-away, out of control government will come down with all of its weight and fury on honest people following their consciences. Some will be fined and burdened by unconstitutional demands. Others will be forced out of business. They will receive hate mail, hateful phone calls, and threats. It will be a feeding frenzy for those on the radical Left.

You see, same-sex “marriage” and religious freedom cannot co-exist. Non-discrimination laws and radical left-wing dogma will over-rule the free exercise of religion guaranteed by the Founding Fathers who wrote the First Amendment. The Bill of Rights means absolutely nothing to the Left.

This is a sad day in Arizona. A black day.

In November of 2008, a total of 1,258,355 Arizonans voted to enact marriage as one man and one woman in the state Constitution. A single man, a man with incredible hubris, threw that out. This is the America we live in today. It is not the America of James Madison and the Founders who penned the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Not by a long shot.

We are not alone. This is happening all over America. Tens of millions of voters have been disenfranchised.

And this is the cost of allowing the party of CONTROL, the Democrats, to pack the courts with Constitution-challenged activist judges.

All that’s left is for radical scavengers to clean up the scraps – demonizing anyone who disagrees. Take our word: persecution is coming, fascism will warp into high gear among Arizona’s hardcore leftists. You disagree with the homosexual agenda? Okay, consider yourself a target for the fascists.

A final word to Judge Sedwick and the other activists who have co-opted the courts and disenfranchised the people: when you come to a gate in the road, before removing it take time to consider why it was put there in the first place.

*  *  *

VITALLY IMPORTANT INFORMATION FOR CHURCHES AND PASTORS

It is crucial you update church policy on rental of church facilities to protect yourselves from litigation when someone asks you to officiate over a same-sex “wedding” or to rent church property for a same-sex “marriage.” Consult an attorney with expertise in religious freedom law. Don’t wait. Do it now!

VITALLY IMPORTANT INFORMATION FOR BUSINESSES

If you are asked to provide a service or a product for a same-sex “wedding,” and you are opposed to doing so on religious grounds, do not respond to the homosexuals’ request until first consulting an attorney. This will help you avoid a legal entanglement that could land you in hot water or potentially force you to go out of business. Don’t wait. Do it now!

It’s Ducey, Brnovich, Douglas, Reagan in GOP Primary

Doug Ducey has won the Arizona Republican primary race for governor. RINO Scott Smith is in second, with Christine Jones third, Ken Bennett fourth, Andy Thomas fifth and former congressman Frank Riggs sixth.

Mark Brnovich is ending scandal-ridden RINO Tom Horne’s reign as Arizona attorney general.

Diane Douglas ousted incumbent John Huppenthal for Superintendent for Public Instruction. Douglas ran on her opposition to Common Core education, which Huppenthal supported.

RINO Michele Reagan is winning the nomination for secretary of state. She will most likely lose in November to Democrat Terry Goddard.

Jeff DeWitt is heading for victory in the three-man primary race for state treasurer, with RINO Hugh Hallmann in second and former AZ GOP chairman Randy Pullen running third.

Wendy Rogers is leading Andrew Walter by about 5,000 votes in the GOP Congressional District 9 race.

Gary Kiehe is surprisingly leading in the GOP Congressional District 1 in a close race with Adam Kwasman and Andy Tobin.

Several incumbent congressmen ran unopposed.

In the Republican race for Arizona Corporation Commissioner, Tom Forese and Doug Little have secured nominations for November’s general election.

In a huge disappointment, Arizona-bashing Bob Worsley has defeated challenger Dr. Ralph Heap in the State Senate race for District 25.  

Additionally, John Giles won handily over conservative Danny Ray in the election for mayor in Mesa. Giles was backed by all the current councilmen — all of whom, incidentally, were identified as “friends” and “champions” of Big Government by Americans for Tax Prosperity.

During the summer campaign, The Arizona Conservative questioned the loyalty of many Republican candidates to GOP principles. Several of those candidates won or did well tonight, raising additional questions about Republican voters, as well. Do personalities and advertising tactics weigh more heavily with Republican voters, or do they observe GOP principle as their criteria for voting decisions? The answer is in, and the GOP platform was a big loser in here in Arizona this summer. And as we said previously, it hasn’t been tried and found wanting. For many of the candidates — particularly Smith, Hallmann, Reagan, Worsley, Horne, and others — it has not been tried. Obviously, conservatives have much to do to educate Republicans in this state, which appears to be drifting away from the conservative principles that made America great.

DEVELOPING …

Law: The Hijacking of America’s Legal System

From its founding, America’s legal system was built upon natural law defined by John Quincy Adams as:

“The laws of nature and nature’s God … of course presupposes the existence of a God, the moral ruler of the universe, and a rule of right and wrong, of just and unjust, binding upon man, preceding all institutions of human society and of governments.”

For America’s first century, Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Law, which reflected God-given natural law, heavily influenced the education of lawyers.

But within a century, academics would begin to undermine this system. Their preference was a legal system based on relativism. Applied to law, it’s called “positivism.”

The five major points of positivism are:

  • There are no God-given standards of law relevant to law
  • Man is the author of law, not God, and law is determined by the highest-ranking human authority in the state;
  • Man and society are evolving. Therefore, law is evolving;
  • Through their decisions, judges guide the evolution of law;
  • To study the law is to review the decisions of judges.

In the 1870s, Harvard Law School Dean Christopher Columbus Langdell applied the concept of evolution to law. He claimed that laws must evolve, and judges should guide the evolution of law and Constitution. He introduced the study method of case law and referring to judges’ decisions rather than the Constitution.

Langdell’s views rendered irrelevant the original intent of the Founding Fathers, history and precedent. The Founders’ views were considered a hindrance to the evolution of society. Through the next few decades, other law schools adopted the Langdell view of law, and law schools abandoned natural law and Blackstone’s commentaries.

Roscoe Pound, who served as dean of the law schools at Harvard and the University of Nebraska, institutionalized positivism. Discarding natural law, he said, “We have to rid ourselves of this sort of legality and to attain a pragmatic, a sociological legal science.” It should be the goal of law, Pound said, to become a sociological force to influence the development of society.

In the 20th century, more and more people who endorsed positivism were placed on the U.S. Supreme Court. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes also made it his mission to use law to reach “a social end” rather than to rely on natural law.

Going even further, Justice Benjamin Cardozo, appointed in 1932, urged the Supreme Court to engage in blatant judicial activism: to make law from the bench.

Justice Charles Evans Hughes was just as bold, stating: “We are under a Constitution, but the Constitution is what the judges say it is.”

By the 1940s, positivists reached critical mass and began to produce radical societal change. It wasn’t long – 1947, Everson v. Board of Education – before the Supreme Court fabricated a so-called wall of “separation of church and state” – launching an era of hostility and interference by the state with Christianity that continues to this day. Then in 1958, Chief Justice Earl Warren wrote in the Trop v. Dulles decision:

“The [Constitutional] Amendment must draw its meaning from the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of an evolving society.”

In his 16 years on the High Court, Warren and other justices struck down numerous, long-standing practices, brazenly doing so without any whiff of precedent. America’s highest court had severed any connection between history, precedent and the intent of the Constitution’s framers.

Today, as in earlier times of positivism, the danger of the courts is the writing of laws which are out step with mainstream sentiment of “we the people.” And there is no accountability of judges and justices to the people. The courts have become the oligarchy Thomas Jefferson warned against. The courts have become what George Washington said would be the “customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed.”

One of the many egregious examples of judicial activism was the High Court’s 1973 decision, Roe v. Wade, which legalized abortion on demand. Even high profile supporters of abortion have criticized the lack of sound reasoning in that decision. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a former attorney with the ACLU – a staunch advocate of abortion – said the “heavy-handed judicial intervention was hard to justify.”

Today, there are still courts and judges which uphold the Constitution and natural law. Those that don’t are susceptible to wild fabrications of new laws and “rights” without precedent or sound justification. As a result, we have a judicial system divided by sharply contrasting worldviews. The die is cast for against court litigants based solely on the approach of the judge(s), which makes for an inconsistent, unbalanced, ineffective judicial system.