The landmark decision is expected to have widespread reverberations across the country. Local magistrates and educators are not sure how to apply it.
The ruling declared, in the name of movement equality, that the law of gravity is null and void. The judge said that preconceived notions of up and down were “degrading and patronizing.” He claimed that the position of an object renders it “up,” “higher” or “above,” arbitrarily “assigning it a value of false superiority.” In a similar way, the designations “down” or “lower” convey “a notion of inferiority and oppression” that is “discriminatory and hurtful.”
“Movement and location should be free of antiquated designations,” he declared. “They should no longer be subject to old value systems. Notions that things at ‘higher’ locations naturally tend to go in a preconceived ‘lower’ direction is the result of long-held social and religious attitudes that must be changed. Objects should have every freedom to go in any direction without the restraints of gravity laws.”
The case was brought before the federal judge by two plaintiffs who claimed their civil rights were violated by Mount Rushmore National Park officials who told them they could not walk in forbidden and risky areas of the monument because they might fall “down” and endanger their lives. Joseph P. Jacobs and Sarah Jones claimed the automatic assumption of gravity inhibited their freedom and prevented their right of expression.
“We are jubilant,” said plaintiff Jones. “We have waited so long for this moment. Both of us have endured incredible suffering. This is a dream come true!”
In response to the ruling, a professor at South Dakota’s Local University said, “Location and movement equality is one of the cutting edge issues in law today. This ruling sends a strong signal that the tide is finally turning in public opinion in favor of movement equality.”
Opponents claim the ruling is unenforceable.
“It will turn the world of physics on its head,” claims professor J. Pierce at nearby Newton Law College. “Soon we will no longer be able to use terms like left or right; forward and backward.”
The ruling actually makes accommodations for citizens who still wish to observe gravity limitations in the privacy of their homes. However, the judge gave the state 90 days to craft regulations that will establish gravity-free zones in public places to assist those like the plaintiffs, who wish to exercise their freedom. He also stipulated that the state must address the needs of “gravity-challenged” persons by providing special equipment if necessary.
“This is clearly a constitutional issue since the pursuit of happiness is involved,” reads the decision. “At issue is the denial of the right to define one’s own concepts of existence. There should not be limits or boundaries to one’s own experience of liberty.”
Educators are particularly concerned by the ruling since many school structures contain gravity-friendly terms and ways of operating. Notions of “high” or “middle” schools may have to be changed. “High” or “low” grades also will need to be altered to appear less offensive.
The attorney general has said that the state will appeal the ruling to a higher court. However, the judge himself has warned that any such attempt will be null and void. To claim that there is a “higher” court, will itself run counter to what has now become “established” law.
Of course, this fictitious case is absurd, representing a nightmarish situation. No federal judge can nullify the law of gravity, the law of contradiction or any other such natural laws that are derived from the nature of things.
Gay rights proponents at the Supreme Court. (Image Source: Getty Images)
Yet, federal judges are now striking down marriage laws left and right in the mistaken belief that they can change the nature of marriage by simple judicial fiat. It should be obvious that such rulings cannot change the nature of marriage any more than a ruling can change the law of gravity. Like the gravity ruling, such decisions create completely different things divorced from the institutions they claim to change. They result in absurd caricatures disconnected from reality.
Activist judges can issue all the rulings they want, but it does not change the reality of things. Up will always be up. Down will always be down. Marriage will always be between one man and one woman.
TheBlaze contributor channel supports an open discourse on a range of views. The opinions expressed in this channel are solely those of each individual author.