Sunday, May 08, 2011

Surprise, Surprise: Brazil Supreme Court "Defies Constitution"

Coat of arms of Brazil                               Image via Wikipedia
"Brazil supreme court defies Constitution, grants homosexual civil unions".
Brazil’s Supreme Federal Tribunal has ruled that homosexual unions are equivalent to the “stable unions” of heterosexuals under national law, despite the Brazilian Constitution’s clear limitation of such unions to heterosexual couples.
The court’s ruling comes after years of failed attempts by homosexualist organizations and politicians to establish gay civil unions through the national legislature..
As I recall, the mainly Liberal-appointed Supremes in Canada "wrote in" sexual orientation into the Canadian Charter of Rights even though the democratically-elected Parliament, representing the collective will and wisdom of Canadians, had explicitly chosen not to do so. The will and wisdom of Parliament, representing Canada and Canadians, was summarily over-ridden by nine morally superior judges.

The essential lawlessness (as in not subject to the limitations or strictures of legal statutes or constitutions) of western courts is now a well-established phenomenon. To the point that we've now come to expect it. They probably have champagne-fueled international conferences where the judges from various countries get to share judicial activism strategies, justifications, etc. Invariably the rulings amount to something like this: "we have the power to do this; the seven or nine of us want to do this; so we're doing it".

And Liberals accuse Conservatives of having a low view of Parliament! No wonder a lot of people don't bother voting. If what really matters at a gut level to people can be summarily over-ruled at the whim of judicial elites, why bother?

And that's the way the Ball bounces.
Enhanced by Zemanta


Hoarfrost said...

In our system constitutions are actually superfluous. Common law has worked throughout centuries and parliamentary statutes are such until overridden by newer statutes. Parliament should be the supreme arbiter over the arbitrary decisions by 9 people. Parliament is around 300 elected people. Fortunately we have a system to amend the constitution through provincial parliaments

To be a free people, then civil unions need to be recognised. Some Christian churches also wish to sanctify gay unions as marriages, orthodox Christians and many others, do not. Atheist and agnostics don't care.

In today's society, those who sanctify only heterosexual marriages now need to modify the term called marriage. Now a true marriage is a traditional Christian marriage. The adjective traditional needs to be appended in order to convey the valid meaning of the union. Those Christians need not be judgemental with others beyond stating their own understanding of marriage.

The government needs to get out of the marriage business altogether beyond registering unions for tax purposes.

Anonymous said...

"surprise surprise" indeed. The judiciary in many countries Canada being one of them are clearly out of control.

Ghost Dancer said...

"The government needs to get out of the marriage business altogether beyond registering unions for tax purposes."

I can back that statement no problem.They are human beings so nuff said.

Anonymous said...

"They are human beings so nuff said"

Nope not quite "nuff".

Brother's & sisters (or brother & brother) for that matter are human beings too. Perhaps we should condone marraiges between them as well.

What about marriages between partners where one partner is mentally disabled. Do we give the partner an IQ test before issuing a license? I'm mean they are both HUMANS and we would never want to discriminate.

Hey hold on, what about co-joined twins? Do they count as ONE human or two?
Can they marry each other and enjoy the tax breaks, pension allowances that married couples do?

What about someone with a long existing condition of multiple personality disorder? Could it be agrued that this is more than one person --- or two --- more?

These are absurd questions but then lawyers, (especially human rights lawyers) are experts at makinjg their absurd arguements reasonable even attractive to some pompous, self important, judge who is desperate to appear progressive and politically correct .

Our wiser than thou courts have a weed up their asses about any sort of traditional value or public opinion on societal change. They believe themselves to be so lofty and omniscient that they tower above ordinary mortals in their morality.

Let's face it when the gay marraige question went before the courts it was a question the was decided before the parties even enterred the courtroom. The SCOC knew before they even heard a word of testimony what decision they were going to render.

"... nothing intellectually compelling or challenging.. bald assertions coupled to superstition... woefully pathetic"