Are We Headed Toward Abolishing the Secret Ballot and Judicial Tyranny?

March 23, 2014 - 5:48 PM
A Federal judge declared yesterday after 5pm that Michigan's Marriage Amendment (MMA) was unconstitutional.  Advocates for same-sex marriage "strongly" urged three county clerks offices to open on Saturday in order to issue "marriage" licenses.

The Michigan Attorney General, Bill Schuette, immediately filed a freeze on the order, and I have no insight on how that all works, but I have a question.

First of all, it is up to the States to define marriage, but now we are throwing that whole idea out I guess because of activist's ideas.  In 2004, 59% of Michigan's voting residents voted for the amendment to be added to the Michigan Constitution.  All of the people who voted in Michigan did so according to their beliefs.

So my question is, "Are we headed toward abolishing the secret ballot?"

Judge Bernard Friedman decided, on his own, that the people of Michigan do not have a say in defining marriage because the outcome of asking them, "discriminates against people" who don't fit in the defined group.

With all the imaginable scenarios coming from this decision, I only worry about, maybe two.  One, that churches will be forced to marry same-sex couples against their will, and two, that our right to have a secret ballot will be constantly undermined by judges who think we are rubes.

With all the "discrimination" epithets being thrown around, what stops a future judge from reversing an election because the minority lost?  Does somebody want to explain how that won't happen due to rulings like this?

When you head to the polls, many of you don't share who you are going to vote for, and why.  You don't have to get into politics publicly; all you want to do is vote and have your voice anonymously heard.  But after a ruling that basically just stripped your right to be heard, isn't it conceivable that in an election, where both sides are stretching the truth, that the side that loses might lawyer up and argue out that they should have won?  That candidate A, a woman was discriminated against by candidate B, a man, and since he enjoys all the perks associated with a male-dominated world, the people cannot be trusted to vote without holding that "discriminatory" view, therefore candidate A should be installed regardless of the election tally?

Reading the judge's decision, he admits to inviting the plaintiffs to directly challenge the MMA, then holds all testimony to support his view in high regard, and rejects everything else.  How imperial, to borrow a popular phrase.

If a judge can direct the lawsuit, admitting going in that he has it in for the people's voice, how safe are we in all of our voting privileges?

After months of being called "bigots" by the zealots in the gay rights movement; after being berated for not "feeling" the tidal wave of 52% nationwide support for gay "marriage"; after being treated like second-class citizens for exercising our right to vote, anyone who believes the definition of marriage should stand between a man and a woman has just gotten their secret ballot compromised.

Though advocates rejoice that they may have same-sex "marriage" in Michigan, they are trading both democracy and republican government for judicial tyranny.