Category Archives: Government
Following last week’s controversial U.S. Supreme Court rulings on Obamacare and gay marriage, voters believe more strongly that individual states should have the right to turn their backs on the federal courts.
A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 33% of Likely U.S. Voters now believe that states should have the right to ignore federal court rulings if their elected officials disagree with them.
I don’t believe in coincidences. Things happen for a reason, and when they happen often gives us clues as to why they do. The SCOTUS Obergefell v. Hodges ruling and the brouhaha over the Confederate battle flag is a case in point. We can understand the real reason the flag is being desecrated by the efforts of the rainbow elephant crowd. They through egalitarianism’s bastile mean to homogenize America. While the SCOTUS decision further divided the people, our history’s emblem of resistance to central government tyranny and imperial rule would be eradicated.
The ruling, as the dissenting justices of the court pointed out, would be divisive, but the ruling is just another in a long line of usurpations and corruptions of law abrogating honour and decency. People will not stand idly by while the framework of democracy is dismantled as an oligarchy of judges ascends. Others may manipulate or demean the reasons for our history of secession, but a principle is never defeated through war.
The first to plead his case seems right, Until another comes and examines him. – Proverbs 18:17 (NASB)
Some of the arguments people are making to support the legalization of homogamy sound plausible. On closer examination they don’t hold the proverbial water they should.
1) No one is going to make you be gay. Now that SCOTUS has finally declared that discriminating against people on the basis of their sexual orientation violates their basic rights, they are not saying that you have to become gay now yourself. This approval of same-sex marriage at the national level does not mean that you now have to get gay married, okay? So let’s get that part out of the way first. It also doesn’t mean that you can’t teach your own children to judge other people for their sexual orientation. You’re still free to do that, no matter what. It’s your right. It’s a part of your religion (or at least of your particular version, just don’t ask the other people in your religion who don’t see it the same way), so the United States government is not going to take that away from you, I promise.
Making specious claims about the arguments of others will get them nowhere. Address the issue accurately. The Obergefell v. Hodges decision, Supreme Court Docket 14-556, addressed homogamy, not homosexual discrimination. The court in its magical way found homogamy in the fourteenth amendment to the Constitution when nothing in the Constitution says anything about marriage, let alone homogamy or homosexual marriage. On the basis of this decision from the Supreme Court homogamy is now constitutionally protected. Suggesting that Christians are still free to teach our own children to judge on the basis of sexual orientation because “the United States government is not going to take that away” is being blind and deaf to the whims of not only the court, but of the other two branches of government as well as the education system. The powers that be want nothing more than to indoctrinate our children. To “promise” such a thing upon which one has no control is foolish and stupid.
2) Preachers will not be forced to marry gay people. Thanks to the same First Amendment that keeps your religion from taking over everyone else’s lives, those churches which do not approve of this move will remain free to disapprove of it—and to speak publicly about their disapproval—for as long as you still care about this issue. What’s more, that constitutional protection has enabled churches to refuse to marry anyone they choose despite every new national advance in the fight for civil rights. You don’t want to marry an interracial couple? That’s actually your right. Always has been, always will be. Your churches will remain free to reject as many kinds of people and relationships as you please. This is a well-established protection that will not budge no matter what those who disagree with you wish were the case. Even if somebody tries to take you to court over it in the future, they will fail because your constitutional protections overrule their personal views. That’s how this works.
John Adams, as many others have echoed, believed this to be a government of laws, and not of men. This guiding principle, like the failed Confederacy in Jefferson Davis’ words, died of a theory. The First Amendment, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances“, and the Supreme Court’s enshrinement of homogamy into the constitution are on a collision course if only because homosexuality and Christianity don’t go together. If the court can conjure homosexual marriage out of a document which says nothing about marriage at all then it can compel pastors and the religious to sanction something labeled marriage for the clearly immoral. Anyone claiming “…that constitutional protection has enabled churches to refuse to marry anyone they choose…” is ignorant of a little SCOTUS case called Bob Jones University v. United States which was argued due to the university’s prohibition of student interracial dating or marriage. Yes, the constitution enabled Bob Jones University to freely practice it’s belief, but this case enabled the IRS to withdraw Bob Jones’ tax exempt status based upon racial discrimination. Money has a way of speaking louder than the law. The SCOTUS in this case found that “Government has a fundamental, overriding interest in eradicating racial discrimination in education.” If a similar case comes before the court it wouldn’t hesitate to use this case as precedent and eradicate sexual discrimination. A question in the minds of many is how long it will be before the first 501c3 tax exempt status is withdrawn by the IRS from a church on this basis. It’s been threatened on the basis of sermon content alone before. When the first homosexual couple darkens the doorway of a church to insist that their “marriage” be officiated by some reluctant curate we’ll know we’ve arrived.
3) It will not become illegal to be a Christian. Ever the opportunist willing to stoke the fires of evangelicals’ persecution complexes, Mike Huckabee continues to spout warnings that once LGBT folks are given the same rights as the rest of us the government will begin putting people in jail for openly disparaging this move. He continues to capitalize on evangelicals’ irrational fears that the Christian faith will soon be criminalized like it was back in ancient Rome under a completely different kind of government. Huckabee used to run the entire state of Arkansas, but I honestly can’t tell if he just really doesn’t get how the US government works, or if he’s being intentionally dishonest in order to whip his potential base into a frenzy just to get their vote. Either way, you shouldn’t listen to him because he’s misleading you.
Again, anyone foolish enough to imagine this to be a “completely different kind of government” and that a former state governor and presidential candidate “really doesn’t get how the US government works” doesn’t have a very good handle on reality themselves. Christianity can just as easily be criminalized tomorrow as homogamy was sanctioned in a day by a panel of 5 judges. Perhaps the only reason it doesn’t happen suddenly would be because it runs the risk of revolt. Yes, there are Christians who would revolt. No, it most likely won’t happen that way, but it will happen slowly, carefully and methodically. There may be enough of their atheist friends around to help make their dreams come true. That pesky law of unintended consequences, though, will bring about some very undesirable results in the absence of Christian moral restraint.
4) God isn’t going to destroy America. I can’t really tell if my Christian friends seriously think this will happen even though they use the rhetoric a lot. Most American evangelicals I know harbor a deep sense of exceptionalism which leads them to believe that God needs America in ways that would prevent him from wiping us out.
This is one Christian who knows that America isn’t standing in the way of God’s will, it’s unpleasantly coming to it. While the atheists, agnostics and all around ungodly merrily celebrate an America covered in rainbows, there are Christians wise enough to see the hazards and dangers ahead. Just because the destruction of America, just as illegal Christianity, doesn’t happen tomorrow doesn’t mean we’re not headed there. It’s a pity as well, for if their minds were of understanding they would realize, just as Christians do, that America’s time is drawing short.
While they are saying, “Peace and safety!” then destruction will come upon them suddenly like labor pains upon a woman with child, and they will not escape. But you, brethren, are not in darkness, that the day would overtake you like a thief; for you are all sons of light and sons of day. – 1 Thessalonians 5:3-5
Not since Justice Douglas first delivered us the emanations and penumbras from the Constitution have we seen interpretations of law and opinions so broad as to be unintelligible.
Same-sex couples won the right to marry nationwide Friday as a divided Supreme Court handed a crowning victory to the gay rights movement, setting off a jubilant cascade of long-delayed weddings in states where they had been forbidden. “No longer may this liberty be denied,” said Justice Anthony Kennedy. The vote was narrow – 5-4 – but Kennedy’s majority opinion was clear and firm: “The court now holds that same-sex couples may exercise the fundamental right to marry.” The ruling will put an end to same-sex marriage bans in the 14 states that still maintain them, and provide an exclamation point for breathtaking changes in the nation’s social norms in recent years. As recently as last October, just over one-third of the states permitted gay marriages.
By my count, 35 states had homogamy legalized by either federal or state judicial fiat prior to Obergefell, overturning either state legislatures or popular vote in those instances. The states of Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington along with the District of Columbia had legislation adopted to legalize it. So in the majority of states those courts overruled the will of the people. Now the SCOTUS dispenses with the will of the people in the remaining 14 states who’ve had marriage protection laws by simply stating:
The Fourteenth Amendment requires a State to license a marriage between two people of the same sex… The right to marry is a fundamental right inherent in the liberty of the person, and under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment couples of the same-sex may not be deprived of that right and that liberty. Same-sex couples may exercise the fundamental right to marry. – Justice Kennedy, delivering affirming opinion in Obergefell v. Hodges
In another ruling coming as a slap in the face to morality, Justice Kennedy was again the pivotal deciding vote. Remember who appointed Justice Kennedy to the bench? Hint: He was a California REPUBLICAN. Is it any wonder how voting Republican to keep conservatives on the Supreme Court bench worked out? Perhaps this will finally teach us that voting third party, as in Constitution Party candidates Michael Peroutka or Chuck Baldwin, wasn’t the wasted vote we thought. Unfortunately, I’m dubious to think that 2016 for Christians will be any different.
This Obergefell v. Hodges ruling will go down in history with Roe v. Wade as Supreme Court rulings that divided a nation. The Supreme Court justices were sharply divided in this ruling. Scalia, Thomas, Roberts and Alito each wrote dissenting opinions for the court, a rare thing. Scalia’s is particularly scathing of Justice Kennedy’s affirmation. This is but another dividing wedge, as is abortion, gun control, etc. Both of these decisions coming by the will of select judges and not the will of the people serve to further undermine the democratic process.
Today, however, the Court takes the extraordinary step of ordering every State to license and recognize same-sex marriage. Many people will rejoice at this decision, and I begrudge none their celebration. But for those who believe in a government of laws, not of men, the majority’s approach is deeply disheartening. Supporters of same-sex marriage have achieved considerable success persuading their fellow citizens—through the democratic process—to adopt their view. That ends today. Five lawyers have closed the debate and enacted their own vision of marriage as a matter of constitutional law. Stealing this issue from the people will for many cast a cloud over same-sex marriage, making a dramatic social change that much more difficult to accept. – Chief Justice John Roberts, dissenting opinion, Obergefell v. Hodges
It may have closed the debate for five lawyers, but it won’t close the debate in the public arena. I suspect this will, in fact, become the new battleground, just as Christians fought on the beachhead of abortion for decades. The charade that is the bifurcated Republican/Democrat political elite is over. The charade of the rule of laws is over. There is only the question of upon which side the Christian happens to be as the line between good and evil is drawn.
However, even as we struggle as a church to come to a unified response to this blatant rejection of the entire history of humankind and its practice of marriage, “We shall obey God rather than man” (Acts 5:29). Christians will now begin to learn what it means to be in a state of solemn conscientious objection against the state. We will resist its imposition of falsehood upon us, even as we continue to reach out to those who continue to be harmed by the ethic of radical sexual freedom, detached from God’s blessing of marriage. And we will stand shoulder to shoulder with Christians, churches and people of good will who are resolute on this issue.
God help us. Amen.
Among some questions posed by a reader is, “We can see that things are unraveling quickly in this country. What scenario do you think best fits our future?” It does appear as if events are moving quickly. Greece is economically lost, and surely with it the EU. The immigrant invasion in the U.S. and Europe threatens the end of Western culture. The caliphate is steadily wiping out previous Western coalition military and political achievements in the Middle East. China, unofficially mind you, makes regular incursions into U.S. internet and political interests. Russia once again looms ominously in Western Europe. All this not to mention the internal economic and moral implosion happening in the U.S. itself.
I am no expert, nor do I consider myself an effective prognosticator, and in that vein I simply couldn’t come to the point of forecasting a particular dystopian scenario. I would simply cast an opinion based upon some biblical as well as historical and political knowledge. It’s difficult to tell where these events ultimately lead, but I believe one thing is certain. The United States of America is done. I put this very simply so that NSA/CIA/FBI scanners make no mistake. God extended His grace and mercy to what came to be the United States of America for a dispensation of time. As a country we have progressively separated ourselves from that Superintending Creative Power and in so doing degeneration and degradation have slowly taken over. The seeming acceleration of these indications show me that the end is coming. Whether that results in anarchy, a caliphate or the U.S. simply becoming a third-world police-state is anybody’s guess.
Generally, I don’t expect the United States federal government to last effectively past 50 years or so. There are other opinions out there I’ve read which give it less time than that based upon economics. When a government heaps up over $18,000,000,000,000 in debt, there will be a day of reckoning, and I am loathe to think that the reckoning will come at the hands of foreign investors. It may seem like lunacy, and again I am no economic expert, but it seems to me debt means that creditors demand payment. I can imagine a state or states ultimately being sold off, as it were, to pay it (Bye, bye California?). In any event, the federal government is in ominous financial trouble as it tries to foster confidence and obfuscate the depth of its dire circumstances both domestically and in the world. In modern parlance, they’re blowing smoke. All of it, from arguments of raising the debt ceiling to unemployment figures to GDP reports, is a canard. It’s just a side show for the major media networks to rebroadcast and distract the citizenry. Think of it like this. Politicians simply don’t want to be the ones without a chair to sit in when the music stops. The financial events in Greece in the past few weeks are a foretelling of what I expect the banking conditions to ultimately be like here. The more well to do are holding their assets abroad, attempting to be out of the reach of an invasive government, and there is a rise among them renouncing U.S. citizenship. American economic collapse is just a matter of time, and I just don’t foresee the United States as an aggregate of 50 states for much longer.
The sentiments I expressed several months ago regarding the state of this nation, particularly “any semblance of the current United States will cease to exist in approximately 20 years” I still stand behind. By that statement I essentially mean that the geopolitical context we’ve known as the U.S. will undergo dramatic change. Even now we’re seeing the internal unraveling of what was federalism. There is growing conflict between federal and state sovereignty. Marijuana laws (Colorado), illegal immigration (border states), and Obamacare (states refusing to establish exchanges) are just a few examples of that. It’s just a question of time until the practical threshold is reached when federal requirements of the states over reaches federal funding to them, and then the states will decide for themselves what to do in the face of tyranny. How and what that looks like, again anyone’s guess.
Illegal immigration is in reality a territorial invasion. Perhaps the only significant difference between an invading army and mass immigration are the weapons. Essentially, there is no difference if the people being invaded are forced to allow it by arms or by their own government. We’ve seen this not only in the U.S. but with the Islamic invasion of Europe. In that respect, ISIL has apparently struck again in France. The Mexican government’s only interest in all this is to be rid of their undesirables across the border.
In a national geopolitical view, I think what we’re seeing is the balkanization of America. Historically Western culture in the U.S. is being decimated through several factors, not the least of which is immigrant invasion. Such faux ideals as egalitarianism, the rise of “sexual fluidity”, neo-communism and political correctness have contributed to the eradication of any concept of American ideology. The notion of “one nation” let alone “under god” is pure fantasy. Contrary to some prevalent current thinking, the Southron Confederacy was a valid political alternative to an oppressive economic and cultural influence at the time. Because history has that proverbial way of repeating itself, I believe we are culturally, politically, ideologically and especially spiritually revisiting those first causes of secession once again. I’ve had this opinion for the past 15 years or so, but I’ve also understood that secession isn’t necessarily along predefined political boundaries. It’s uncertain what this country’s future geopolitical landscape will look like due to the current nature of the immigrant invasion, the urban versus rural political/cultural complex and the economic fallout to come, but dividing lines are definitely developing. Will there be a Southron Confederacy redux? The wicked keepers of the public conscience, the social justice warriors, can disdain and attempt to eradicate the vestiges of history like the Confederate Battle Flag, but they cannot eradicate history itself. They cannot destroy the will of those, who just as was in that Southron Confederacy, dispatched tyranny from an oppressor. Time will tell where or if there is safe harbor before the end is in clear view.
“Will it get a lot worse before it gets better?” It will surely get worse than now, and I shudder to think of a current child’s future as I make that claim. Christians are being pressed, crushed and persecuted into prayer as it has been in history. Think Dietrich Bonhoeffer. Think of the 21 Egyptian Christians. They were true believers. THAT is Christianity, not some convenience about “going” to church, or “fellowshipping” with the saints over a backyard barbecue. It’s about preparing our convictions to face the ugly, disgusting reality of evil and sin, even at the blade of a sword or point of a gun. Consider also the lives of four Americans currently imprisoned in Iran and remember that there is nothing but God now to restrain a federal government from acting in a similar fashion (Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes). “Precious in the sight of the Lord is the death of His godly ones.” We should pray that we are worthy to die in such a way that will give glory to Him Who is not only the author and finisher of our faith, but in Whom are all the issues of life and death.
“Will there ever be a better day before Christ comes?” I wait with expectancy for Christ to come, but live and contemplate these conditions becoming worse as if He is still a thousand years off. What will we do when they come for our guns? What will we do when they come for our children? Christians have to decide what The Tipping Point is going to be. The essence of choosing your battles wisely is to know what truly matters. Christianity doesn’t mean we supinely allow evil free rein. It does mean that as Christians, our lives are hid within Christ and vulnerable to everything else.
“How long do we have?” Simply, all we have are our lives, nothing more. We have our whole lives long, if that’s what it takes, to remain faithful to the Lord and to suffer whatever ignominies of which we are worthy until we find ourselves before Him. Accept Christ or deny Him and live that way. That is all that is left for our generation. The pivotal question, I believe, at this juncture in history is, given all the influences and everything that is happening before them, how will our progeny find Christ? How will they know Him? What Godly legacy will we leave them? I intend to make their encounter with Christ a real one.
The Supreme Court on Thursday upheld the nationwide tax subsidies underpinning President Barack Obama’s health care overhaul, rejecting a major challenge to the landmark law in a ruling that preserves health insurance for millions of Americans…. Scalia said that Roberts’ 2012 decision that upheld the law and his opinion on Thursday “will publish forever the discouraging truth that the Supreme Court of the United States favors some laws over others, and is prepared to do whatever it takes to uphold and assist its favorites.”
Recalling what I wrote at last year’s end…
The Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) will face SCOTUS challenges in 2015 which will have minor effect. It is a tax, and as such the Republicans have as much lust for it as the Democrats. In the end, it will matter little as any semblance of the current United States will cease to exist in approximately 20 years.
Though I didn’t explicitly predict the SCOTUS to uphold ACA I expected the entire brouhaha to be another insignificant anecdotal point along America’s destructive path. This broad, lawless interpretation of something as mundane as healthcare paves the way for the SCOTUS to rule in favor of the plaintiffs in the Obergefell case (homogamy issue) and make deviancy legitimate.
In addition, the current firestorm regarding the elimination of Confederate merchandise, from Amazon to Sears to Etsy to Walmart, promises to lead to some interesting unintended consequences. From the soldier in marbled legacy…
Now is the time to talk about replacing the statue of Robert E. Lee, as iconic as it is controversial, from its perch at the center of Lee Circle, Mayor Mitch Landrieu announced Wednesday (June 24) during a gathering held to highlight his racial reconciliation initiative.
To other symbols of our collective history…
Online retail giant Amazon’s Monday decision to ban the sale of merchandise depicting the Confederate flag has many Americans scratching their heads, as a quick review of Amazon’s site reveals the company still sells Nazi flags.
Eliminating the moral compass results in more than moral consequences. It’s a denial of reality.
“Americans increasingly believe that their country isn’t serving its own citizens. They need look no further than a bipartisan vote of Congress that will transfer congressional power to the Executive Branch and, in turn, to a transnational Pacific Union and the global interests who will help write its rules.
“The same routine plays out over and again. We are told a massive bill must be passed, all the business lobbyists and leaders tell how grand it will be, but that it must be rushed through before the voters spoil the plan. As with Obamacare and the Gang of Eight, the politicians meet with the consultants to craft the talking points—not based on what the bill actually does, but what they hope people will believe it does. And when ordinary Americans who never asked for the plan, who don’t want the plan, who want no part of the plan, resist, they are scorned, mocked, and heaped with condescension.
Simply another in a laundry list of reasons to forget about the U.S. of A. as a legal entity and begin now to establish a new republic. None of the traditional three branches of government follow the rule of law, let alone the Constitution. Americans believe it because it doesn’t take much effort to see the farce that federalism and the federal government has become. The late War of Northern Aggression decimated any legitimate federalism of the states.
The charade is over. It’s long been over. The empire that it became in the 20th century is beginning to fall to pieces in the 21st.
Donald Trump is running for president, on the promise that he will ‘bring back’ the American dream.
The multi-billionaire businessmen announced his shot at the White House Tuesday morning, surrounded with gold, mirrors and polished marble in a midtown Manhattan skyscraper named after himself.
And straight after his announcement he suggested he could pile in even more celebrity to the Trump ticket – by bringing Oprah with him to the White House as Vice President.
If there were any clearer indication as to the dismal condition of these states of the union I don’t know what it might be. The national political party has the option to trade one presidential narcissistic prevaricator for another. To top it off, the thought that we can have a mystical, crystal hugging, media mogul female as vice-president crosses over into the ridiculous. No shame is apparent as they celebrate their political parties.
Trump is a dog chasing a car but not knowing what to do with it when it’s caught. He has no intention of actually becoming POTUS, but he’s revealing the extent of the political miasma. The idea that he’s got a populist message shows how far afield American politics has drifted from anything moral or for that matter Godly. National politics is a dog and pony show. It is a reality version of Much Ado About Nothing, with the joke truly being on us.
In November of 2016, God permitting, the national “parties” will hold elections. They will cajole us to vote. They will suggest that voting will change things. It changes nothing. Voting gives sanction to the political process. It gives sanction to the “party” in power. It doesn’t function as it once did because of a combination of reasons which all stray from original design and spiritual intent. It is wholly disconnected from the will of the people.
There will be those, as there always are, who say that we must vote to keep to a standard of righteousness if not to defeat those who don’t. There are those who have the mistaken impression that voting is somehow an act of a responsible Christian. Simply, voting is political and Jesus isn’t. At this point in the juncture of the U.S. it may be more responsible of Christians to trust God and not politics. It may be time to really trust the Lord and not give more tacit approval to the political sophistry. It may be time for Republicans and Democrats alike to see Christians walk past the polling station and witness our cold indifference.
A married Army general on Tuesday introduced his spouse at a Pentagon event that featured lots of top brass, including Defense Secretary Ashton Carter as the keynote speaker.
What made this seemingly routine introduction noteworthy is that Brig. Gen. Randy S. Taylor introduced his husband, Lucas.
“My husband Lucas is sitting up front here,” Gen. Taylor said of the man in the same row as Mr. Carter, Army Secretary John McHugh and other senior officials. He said Lucas has subjugated his own career to support the general’s frequent moves over an 18-year relationship.
There was a time when I might have encouraged young men, including my own, to serve in the military. No more. Cast a careful eye upon these lines and consider the state of the American military in the 21st century. Consider how DADT in 1993 merely provided a means of degeneration. This Pandora’s box of deviancy and evil is undermining the U.S. military, and it presents God-fearing Americans with a dilemma. When the military is morally compromised it can no longer be an effective deterrent to outside aggression. What then?
Also, notice another point in this rainbow narrative. Two males in a homogamous relationship, one being cast the “husband”, but curiously he “has subjugated his own career…” Now, it’s not always true that in similar circumstances the woman in a marriage relationship subjugates her career to the husband, particularly in these modern times, but it is a curiosity that Gen. Taylor would mention it. The question “why” comes to mind. The classic roles in marriage are that of one person in the subordinate, the other in the dominant. Homosexuals who wear the marriage facade are attempting to steal the glory of marriage through imitation.
They have no idea what they’re in for pursuing homogamy. Should the SCOTUS in their upcoming Obergefell v. Hodges ruling decide in favor of homogamy, look for the unintended consequences to come like an avalanche.
A woman who married her female partner last year without first divorcing her husband has pleaded guilty to bigamy and other charges in Virginia. The News Virginian of Waynesboro reports 28-year-old Keyshana Rae Childress was sentenced to two years’ probation.
These times in which we live are remarkable. It would have been hard to imagine some of the remarkable things that have happened recently just 20 years ago. It seems as if events are accelerating. Perhaps the end of all things is closer than we think? Or maybe it just seems that way to this Christian simply because common sense has become an anachronism.
Just when we thought gay marriage or as I prefer to call it, homogamy, was only something in the same realm of possibilities as unicorns and pots of gold at rainbow ends, along comes government to call those things into being which are not. Not only this, but to add insult to injury, the arguments before the SCOTUS in the Obergefell v. Hodges case to decide the legitimacy of homogamy seem to this Christian observer to be precisely backward. Consider the following quotes from attorneys arguing before the SCOTUS on each side of the issue. (Bold my emphasis)
The opportunity to marry is integral to human dignity. Excluding gay and lesbian couples from marriage demeans the dignity of these couples. It did demeans their children, and it denies the — both the couples and their children the stabilizing structure that marriage affords.
Well, I — I — I’m not entirely sure there would be, but, of course, marriage is something more fundamental than that. It is an enduring bond between two people. – Gen. Donald B. Verrilli, Solicitor General for the US Department of Justice; arguing on behalf of the plaintiffs for same sex marriage
Our answer number one is that the marriage institution did not develop to deny dignity or to give second class status to anyone. It developed to serve purposes that, by their nature, arise from biology. Now, imagine a world today where we had no marriage at all. Men and women would still be getting together and creating children, but they wouldn’t be attached to each other in any social institution. Now, the — the marriage view on the other side here is that marriage is all about love and commitment. And as a society, we can agree that that’s important, but the State doesn’t have any interest in that. If we’re trying to solve that social problem I just described, where there’s no marriage, we wouldn’t solve it by saying, well, let’s have people identify who they are emotionally committed to and recognize those relationships. – JOHN J. BURSCH, ESQ., Special Assistant Attorney General of Michigan; arguing on behalf of respondents against same sex marriage
Strange it is to consider that the homogamy proponents base their arguments using transcendental ideas like “enduring bond” and “dignity”, while those supporting hundreds of years of religious tradition accept the view of homogamy as being “all about love and commitment” offering “biology” as support for their claim of marriage. Strange it is indeed when the irreligious reach for the transcendent and the religious use but the mundane to support their arguments. This is with what the religious right is left. It supported the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). It further wanted a Constitutional amendment defining marriage. It voted for presidential candidates who would appoint conservative judges to the SCOTUS. It finally thought passing state initiatives and referendums on marriage would settle the matter. Virtually all those state measures have been overturned by federal circuit judges. DOMA has been emasculated by the supreme court in the Windsor case. Justice Kennedy, who will by many accounts be the deciding vote on the court and is expected to rule in favor of homogamy, was a Reagan appointee.
It comes down to one thing. Government is not the answer. It’s not even the question. Marriage was defined, not by some legislative body or court, but by divine fiat of the Creator God at the beginning of all things. Gen. Verrilli, et. al. have swerved by the truth as a testimony against themselves. Marriage is spiritual, not legal. One clear point to remember is that whatever government is allowed to define, it will legitimize. The court, by way of Justice Kennedy, eisegeted the transcendent concept of “equal dignity” into the 14 Amendment in the Windsor case. After reading and listening to the oral arguments before the SCOTUS in this “landmark” case it seems clear that this court, by oligarchical rule, intends to change an institution into something it hasn’t been for hundreds of years, and the sanctity of the marital love of a man and woman into a parody of itself.
Legal arguments such as these are slippery. The terms change as the times change to suit the participants. There is not only the direct issue at hand, but the indirect issues in consequence. Marriage won’t stop with two men or two women. If we accede to the idea of marriage being “all about love and commitment”, regardless of whether the state has an interest in it or not, it won’t be long before it will be redefined to include polygamy or pederasty as legitimate. Government will act as god, defining and redefining “love and commitment” to mean anything it chooses, granting “equal dignity” to those in decadence.
Justice Sotomayor made an interesting statement during the course of the proceedings.
But the problem is that even under a rational-basis standard, do we accept a feeling? I mean, why is — why as — and I think Justice Kagan put the argument quite clearly, with something as fundamental as marriage, why would that feeling, which doesn’t make any logical sense, control our decision-making?
This ironically seems to bring the discussion back to the point of it all. Does love not “control our decision-making”? Is marriage a just feeling? What is love? Hartley Coleridge’s Sonnet VII begins this way, “Is love a fancy, or a feeling? No. It is immortal as immaculate Truth…” Love can be many things to many people, but true love, the kind upon which marriages are built, is eternal.
It was just a few days ago that I had occasion to drive into a state police road block. It was at a familiar place which typically has had road blocks at other times of the year, Christmas holidays, Independence Day, etc., and strategically held so as to be impossible to detour out of once committed to that direction. The road block on this day was just like all the others, driver’s license check and a check of the vehicle tag. Upon slowing to a stop at the officer’s direction he asked for the license and instructed me to wear my shoulder belt over the shoulder instead of under my arm as I typically do. I find it uncomfortable to wear a shoulder belt at all, but due to the law I make allowances by wearing it under my arm being the least uncomfortable to me. I looked him in the eyes as I turned over my license. He examined it, then returned it to me and said, “Get rid of the attitude or I’ll ticket you for no seat belt.” He then turned and walked away. During the entire encounter I never uttered a thing or made any gesture. Of course, in these types of things it’s better not to say or do a thing as anything done or said can be easily judged to be an escalation of tension and police will simply up the ante. Thinking back on it, I would’ve said something sarcastic like, “You must be that kind of officer that gives police everywhere a bad name.” But he threatened me and I’m the one with a bad attitude.
Actually the State of Georgia code 40-8-76.1 subsection “b” which applies to vehicle safety belts reads as follows.
(b) Each occupant of the front seat of a passenger vehicle shall, while such passenger vehicle is being operated on a public road, street, or highway of this state, be restrained by a seat safety belt approved under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 208.
There is nothing in the Georgia code about how a safety belt should be worn, simply that occupants “shall be restrained by one”. 49 CFR 571.208 of the FMVS standard simply describes the requirements of seat belts. But again I’m the one with a bad attitude because I’m aware of the law and comply in the way that conforms to it, not the police.
The point here is that the written law, code, etc., means little to nothing. It’s use is only convenient insofar as that written law, code, etc., can be leveraged by those wielding it to accomplish their designs. To police, lawyers, judges, et. al., it is an archaic nuisance otherwise. The familiar police motto “to protect and to serve” is universally misapplied to civilians when it really applies to police themselves. The Thin Blue Line marks the demarcation between the two. Police look out for themselves with a boorish arrogance. Occasionally do the interests of civilians coincide with theirs, seldom as a rule. Police typically carry firearms which means that their already inflated arrogance in carrying an government issued “badge of immunity” is further emboldened by the knowledge that their will can be enforced, no matter how insensibly illegal it may be.
A white police officer who gunned down a fleeing, unarmed black man appeared to plant his service-issue Taser gun at the side of the victim’s lifeless body, according to shocking videotape which emerged in the wake of the senseless killing.
Why the officer chose to open fire from a distance rather than simply giving chase demonstrates the inept judgment of police. A fit 33 year old could overtake a 50 year old in a foot chase, and if the taser didn’t work the first time, simply try anything to detain or let him go and catch up to him later. It was purely raw brutish force to kill a man over a broken tail light. Curiously…
Scott may have tried to run from the officer because he owed child support, which can get someone sent to jail in South Carolina until they pay it back, Stewart said. He had four children, was engaged and had been honorably discharged from the U.S. Coast Guard.
He also said that without the video, and the ‘hero’ who recorded it, there would have been no murder charges. He told TV crews: ‘What happened today doesn’t happen all the time – what if there was no video? What if there was no witness – or hero – to come forward?
‘The initial reports stated something totally different – the officer said Mr Scott attacked him and tried to use his Taser on him. But somebody was watching.’
What if, indeed. That should be the first line of defense against them. Document the facts in any way possible. Pictures, video recordings, audio recordings, specifics and particulars of the people involved should be available. This is not the kind of society to go blithely about the day unaware of surroundings and people. A little paranoia is a good thing. In the future it will eventually come to the point where even the facts don’t matter, as the officers of government will be empowered by the wanton disregard of law by judges themselves. The corruption is already endemic. It won’t be too long before safety and security will be strictly up to the individual in a mob society. Then, when the police, government and judges cooperate, will be the time to understand that the law truly restrains no one and force is all they know.