Due Process Seems To Mean...Anything

One thing I can't stand about judicial decisions is their language which means nothing. If words have no meaning, or they can be so easily redefined, why do we need to listen to their meaning? Can we not just say, "Hey judges, we heard your "no", but we have decided to interpret it to mean yes." But then I'd be advocating lawlessness and, I can't do that.

Citizen Link has reported that a judge struck down Nebraska's Marriage Amendment (DOMA). They state, "Nebraska Family First Executive Director Dave Bydalek said the judge held that the DOMA law violated the due process rights of homosexuals because it bars them from seeking gay marriage or civil unions. The ruling effectively voids the protection of marriage in Nebraska."

What is "due process rights"? It is a term I have heard used so often, it seems to mean that all persons have certain rights in which the government can not violate when charging a person with a crime. One site defines Due Process as, "A law must be clear, fair, and have a presumption of innocence to comply with procedural due process."

Or a summary would be:

# Right to a fair and public trial conducted in a competent manner
# Right to be present at the trial
# Right to an impartial jury
# Right to be heard in one's own defense
# Laws must be written so that a reasonable person can understand what is criminal behavior
# Taxes may only be taken for public purposes
# Property may be taken by the government only for public purposes
# Owners of taken property must be fairly compensated

Now I must ask, what does this have to do with homosexuals? Terms like Due Process have become so vague that a judge can make it mean anything he wants. If this judge is going to be consistent, why pass any law? Everyone can say my "Due Process" rights were violated.

Recently Congress passed Campaign Finance Reform laws. Is this not a violation of free speech and the First Amendment? Yet I hear of no judge siding with people like me who might say Due Process Rights are being violated. Or better yet, are creationists like myself having their Due Process rights violated because laws against creationism prevent us from teaching it in the public skrewls? Where does this kind of thinking end?

How about public debate on this subject? How about persuading your fellow man and electing representatives to pass laws we agree with? How about doing things Constitutionally? Oh, WAIT! Leftists hate the Constitution. Filibuster judges that can read and put in judges that legislate. Now what is all the hub-bub about judges again?