"justice For All" Is Not The Rights Of The Majority, But The Rights Of All

By Gilberto Acevedo, M.A Webster University School of Legal Analysis When taking a hard look at the Ninth Amendment and observing all anti gay and lesbian movements mostly leaded by religious people, one must arrive to the conclusion that justice has little to do humanity. It is clear, though, that the Constitution leaves natural rights of men untouched and free standing when it establishes that “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” It is a natural and innate right of men to love and cherish at his or her choosing, not as dictated by others. And the aberrant part hard to swallow, is that of the clergy; did or did not Jesus love mankind, period? And is it not the sole job of Jesus to know who goes to heaven? We can intellectually carve laws all day long, throw money at issues and concerns, and buy the appeasement of the loud man wearing the robe by denying others the rightful exercise of enjoyment. But at the end of the day that natural right of mankind stands infallible before fair-minded people and before the eyes of God. As Anthony D’Amanto puts it that “law itself cannot solve human problems,” we must realize that by satisfying a majority we are sacrificing a group that purports no harm. The chief confusion here is the notion of ‘the majority rules.’ While this is true when speaking of government, it is flaw when applying it to natural rights. My government is entitled to tell me what laws govern my contractual activities as a citizen, but it cannot govern my emotions and the ways I want to channel those, nor with whom I wish the share them. The complexity behind the boycott on the issue of same sex union is the creation of ancient moralists who governed by divine imposition. We have so far, satisfied most impositions from the moralists: not same sex marriage? then same sex union, then union, then civil union, then what? So the long-life investment of two emotional partners should vanish when one or another departs to the call of God or if that union be dissolved? I think not. The majority rules, but the laws of the land must protect the ruler as well as the ruled. We now come full turn to the First Amendment: an expression of love is, on itself, a conceded constitutional right. And it is

irrelevant whether that right is in line with the beliefs of others. A sound example is the long-lasting dispute between animal rights groups and Santeria practitioners; animal rights advocates sustain that animal sacrifice, as central part of Santeria religion, constitutes animal cruelty. On the other hand, Santerians sustain that sacrificing animals at an altar to worship deities is more humane that at a slaughter house. And the latest is true. In this notorious US Supreme Court, City of Hialeah was ridiculed to the point where the Justices appeared even playfully critical of the city claims. Justice Kennedy delivered a potent blow at the city when concluded that even when a practice appears reprehensible and aberrant to others, it also deserves protection under the Freedom of Religion clause. Let us apply the same reflection to the rights of gays and lesbians. It fallows that what some view as amoral, is not necessarily what all the people view it to be. Where the clergy uses monetary power to incursion into a group’s rights, it is also invading and influencing government. The government had granted the rightful benefit of that union to gays and lesbians, but the clergy used its money muscle to undo that small accomplishment. The Church managed to put on the ballot and issue that the majority disagree with. Obviously, gays and lesbians were to be defeated, they are a minority. Despite our pledge of separation, religious figures are forcing their hands through politics and government. For instance, the church is making a political statement when a priest forces church goers to repent for having voted for Obama. What is it a business of religion to deliver those kinds of intrusions? A person can be pro-life and pro yes-we-can at the same time. Maybe the other candidate did not have enough to show, except for a self-centered brainless bimbo. God is apolitical and it was He, not men, who created mankind and nature. What if God conjugated all things so that Obama became the 44th President of the US? Our Founding Document is clear in its passage that “all men are created equal” and it does not say that all men need to look alike, think alike, and manage their lives alike. The ban on same sex union is not a final victory. Eventually humanists and other intellectuals will speak on behalf of the disenfranchised and it should be the US Supreme Court the branch of government who must submit the issue to a rigorous test under the natural rights of mankind. A twist on a different direction would be a palpable disregard to the individualism we all are entitled to, directly from the hands of God.

And to clear any doubt, I am not gay nor I am a messenger from God. I am just thinking of justice “for all.”