The Neosecularist

I Said That? Yeah, I Said That!

Archive for the tag “gay marriage”

Gay Marriage And Why The Majority Rules, Not The Tyranny Of The Minority

Where the United States Constitution protects the minority from the tyranny of the majority, the rights of minority are not infringed upon.  However, the Constitution is not vocal on every single “rights” issue the minority so passionately protests be inducted into the Constitution.  And where those “rights” do not exist anywhere in the Constitution, the minority seeks aid from Leftists and liberal activist judges to “reinterpret” (bend and skew) those Constitutional rights to include language that was never intended so that those “rights”, although they do not exist in the Constitution, become protected.  And while they are not protected explicitly by the Constitution, they are protected by those same liberal activist judges and courts, until they can be successfully removed, effectively blocking the right of the majority to overturn those laws.  In essence – it is the tyranny of the minority which is oppressing and suppressing the rights of the majority.  That is un-Constitutional.

How can you accept something, anything, as a “right” that does not yet exist?  Further, how can you protect that which does not yet exist?  The minority wants gay marriage, which does not exist as a right in the Constitution, (and therefore cannot be Constitutionally accepted and protected) to be Constitutionally accepted and protected nonetheless.  It is in that act of liberal blindness, and throwing lawsuit after lawsuit at every court in America, hoping enough lawsuits will “stick” (and that has been the case, especially with liberal courts) so that enough legal protection and cover for whatever “rights”, gay marriage notwithstanding, the minority advocates for becomes legally protected without ever having to actually be Constitutionally protected or pass Constitutional muster first.

The Left, invoking stare decisis, and the passage of time, and pointing to decided and established law as justification enough to keep such laws intact, becomes irritated and frustrated when those laws are challenged on their Constitutionality.  They further become heated when courts begin to dismantle those coveted laws, finding those laws, rightly, to actually be un-Constitutional.  When the minority is in the majority, in specific pockets of America (San Fransisco, for example) and they, as a majority in those specific locales, pass laws as a majority in their communities, those laws, by virtue of having been passed by a majority (although they represent a minority in the rest of America) become law.  That is Constitutional, and conservatives, although we may not necessarily agree with those laws passed, respect and uphold the right of the majority when they do pass such laws.  Why (and this is rhetorical for obvious reasons) doesn’t the minority have that same respect for the majority when the majority passes laws they, the minority may not necessarily agree with?

The Constitution protects the majority and the right of the majority to pass laws the minority may not approve of, or feel suppresses them.  Remember – the Constitution protects the minority from the tyranny of the majority in many instances, but not every single “right” is Constitutionally protected.  In other words – if gays and advocates for gay marriage want gay marriage to be Constitutionally protected it will first take a majority in the House and Senate to support and pass a new gay marriage amendment and then send that amendment to the states for ratification, in which it will also take a majority of states to make that gay marriage amendment law.

Since there is not a majority in the House and Senate that support gay marriage, let alone a gay marriage amendment; and since there is not a majority of states that support gay marriage, let alone a gay marriage amendment, there is little hope of gay marriage actually becoming Constitutional law any time soon.  This does not stop gay rights advocates from trying to work around the Constitution by using activist judges and courts, in what can only be considered and construed to be acts of tyranny against the majority, to push through their gay rights agenda.

Every one of these attempts is un-Constitutional, and for all their “progress” when more conservative judges who are strict Constitutionalists begin replacing liberal activist judges, those laws will begin to fall, much to the chagrin to liberals.  And that “progress” will push them back.  Liberals, who deal strictly through emotions and emotionally based arguments (as opposed to fact based arguments) will never understand this.  Nor will liberals ever understand their use of hypocrisy and double standards, while it may assuage them, while it may comfort them, does nothing but show how shallow they are, and are willing to be.

In other words – what will happen when a majority of citizens in a state votes to legalize gay marriage in that state and the minority, those that still oppose legal recognition of gay marriage in that state, demand their “minority rights” supersede the majority’s rights and gay marriage be null and void on that basis?  Will the majority then recognize the “rights” of the minority?

Opposing Gay Marriage Not Bigotry – Forcing It On Americans Is!

The Arianna Nation, besides its “Youth Movement”, also indoctrinates its readers through false religion and spirituality.  So called “Rev.” Susan Russell decried New Jersey Governor Chris Christie’s veto of gay marriage, calling it an act of “bigotry” and “déjà vu all over again”, with regards to California’s Proposition 8 which banned same-sex marriage.

However, there is a fundamental difference between the two that someone as inept, and as liberal, as the “Rev.” Russell has overlooked in taking her arrogant, condescending and un-American position that such a dramatic and historic change in the definition of marriage ought to be decided by legislatures and courts, rather than through the people directly.  The New Jersey legislature did not want, and would not allow, the people to vote directly on whether gays and lesbians would be given the right to marry.  Why would the New Jersey legislature be so timid?  What if the people had voted, by a majority, to support, and make legal, gay marriage?  However they would have voted, they were denied that opportunity.  Isn’t that a form a tyranny?

Look at California, and Prop 8, and their decision to reject gay marriage and keep intact the definition of marriage as being between one man/one woman.  The “Rev.” Russell is the bigot.  She is the one who denounces the will of the people to decide marriage – if and only if that decision results in an unfavorable (to her) vote.  And although proposition 8 was decided by the people directly, “Rev.” Russell would support a court overturning the will of the people.

Now, what if the people of California had voted to allow gay marriage, but a court later overturned that decision?  Wouldn’t she condemn the court for interfering with the will of the people?  Of course she would.  As all hypocrites – and “Rev.” Russell is one of those too – she only wants decisions to be made which she supports.  That is why she comes down hard on Gov. Christie for vetoing the gay marriage initiative at the same time she comes down hard on the people of California for vetoing Prop 8.

In “Rev.” Russell’s perverted outlook, she not only wants it both ways, but any way which results in her position being favored over someone else’s, including the will of the people.  That is bigotry!  When a court does overturn Prop 8 (it’s inevitable) “Rev.” Russell will rejoice and proclaim that an injustice has been corrected.  And yet, if there is a lawsuit against New Jersey to compel the state to recognize gay marriage, and a court finds in favor of the lawsuit – she will rejoice in that as well.  The same can be said if/when the people of New Jersey vote to allow gay marriage in their state.

On the other hand, “Rev.” Russell will be infuriated and flabbergasted if the people (although she supports them exercising their right to vote as long as that is a vote she supports) vote to keep the definition of marriage between one man/women in New Jersey.  “Rev.” Russell is convinced that gay marriage is already a constitutionally protected right (which it is not).

Says “Rev.” Russell:

“And as we continue on the journey toward equality here in California, we count not just the cost of the damage done to gay and lesbian families and those who love them, but the cost of years of litigation to defend what shouldn’t need defending: the equal protection guaranteed all Americans.”

Where in the Constitution is gay marriage an “equal protection”?  The founding fathers never even conceived of the idea that at some point in our country’s history men would want to marry men, and women would want to marry women.  And if they had, they never put anything in the Constitution, not even in a secret code to be deciphered by a more “liberated” generation.

If gays want to marry, this is one of those historic and sweeping decisions that must be made by the people directly.  And when the people, as a majority, are ready for gay marriage, they will vote, as a majority, to include gay marriage as part of the over-all definition of marriage.  Conservatives may not necessarily approve of it, but we at least support the will of the people to have a direct voice in deciding such important matters, rather than left-wing judicial courts and seedy legislatures and politicians who aren’t acting in our best interest.

That is why we support Prop 8, and why we, as conservatives would support a proposition on the New Jersey ballot which allows the people of that state to vote on gay marriage for themselves.  The so-called “Rev” Russell, and all liberals, oppose the will of the majority, especially, and only, when that majority goes against their own ideas and positions.  That makes her the real bigot, and the real hypocrite.

And what makes America great is when people have the power to vote on matters of great interest and importance, even when we don’t necessarily agree with those decisions.  People like “Rev.” Russell will never accept that because people like “Rev.” Russell don’t really have any love for America and the values which have made America the greatest, and most coveted, nation in human history.   “Rev.” Russell is willing to throw all that greatness away by demanding a minority, be it of people in a legislature or people in a court, decide a matter, any matter, which will then be handed down upon all the people, even if the majority opposes it.

America cannot support itself on the weight of the minority.  Right now, support for gay marriage is still in the minority.  Gays and lesbians ought to accept that and move on with other matters.  If they keep pressing it they will inevitably awaken an otherwise apathetic mood towards gays and lesbians among those conservatives who aren’t especially that religiously committed and whom don’t necessarily follow social issues as much as they do political issues.  What conservatives do follow is rule of law and constitutional law.  When we see that law weakened and abridged through corruption, we take action.

If gay marriage is to become accepted, and supported by the majority, it never will through the bigoted and tyrannical actions of the “Rev,” Susan Russell, liberal state legislatures and liberal courts who use their influence not to benefit the majority but to appease a small minority.  It must be done through the will of the people – the majority of the people.

The American people deserve better.  America deserves better.  And the “Rev.” Susan Russell ought to know better.

Eleanor Clift, “The Daily Caller” Confirm Illegal Immigration is Key To Obama’s Reelection

Eleanor Clift, using pollster John Zogby as her puppet, is giddy with the prospect that Republican candidates running for President have given President Obama a “gift” in the form of opposing illegal immigration and gay marriage, which she quotes Zogby as saying is Obama’s “ace in the hole”.  What can possibly be meant by this?  Who in their right mind would not oppose illegal immigration?  Democrats, both naturally and obviously.  Doesn’t that validate the long held notion that Democrats are, in fact, not in their right mind, and thus a danger to America?

Zogby is only relating what the polls are telling him.  Clift, who support’s Obama as much as she supports illegal immigration, is merely picking up on statistics, probably rigged in the first place, to further her pro-Obama agenda.  What the polls don’t relate is the make up of people who actually were involved.  Since virtually all conservatives, and most Republicans, oppose illegal immigration, isn’t is fairly obvious who Zogby interviewed?

And gay marriage?  Republicans, on religious grounds may oppose gay marriage, and that might hurt the chances of some, depending on their political district.  However, what most Republicans oppose is allowing politicians, and especially our courts, to subvert the will of the people.  In other words, when the people directly vote in a referendum to oppose same sex marriage, only to have that vote overturned by political or judicial fiat, that goes against the American grain.  People don’t stand for it.  Some Republicans may not like it when the people directly vote to allow same sex marriage in a state.  Those Republicans that would attempt to overrule the will of the people only act against the best interests of conservatism.

It’s no secret to Eleanor Clift that Democrats and liberals support illegal immigration, including Barack Obama.  Neither is it a secret to her that without illegal immigration Democrats are hard pressed to win elections.  Democrats always find it that much more difficult to win elections without the help of illegal immigrants, the dead, children, imaginary people, etc.  Races are certainly tighter when Democrats plat “fair”.  Look at Bob Dornan.  The same happened to Norm Coleman and others who lost their seats in very tight races.

Who, then, is Obama’s only obstacle to reelection?  Using another pollster as her puppet, Geoff Garin, Clift writes:

Obama has real challenges with working-class voters.”

In other words, working people will tend to vote for Republicans, and the unemployed for Democrats.  So, for Obama to assure his reelection, it is to his advantage to have as many Americans unemployed and on government assistance, by November 2012 as possible.   Obama, and the Democrat Party, have been working feverishly since January 2009 to make that happen.  And just in case, they aren’t forgetting about the illegal immigrants.

Which is why, in “The Daily Caller”, there is a piece about E-Verify, and how Republicans, who favor small government, are purportedly being “hypocritical” when it comes to their support for making sure everyone in America are who they say they are when they apply for a job, and are not using made up names, or worse, stolen identities.

The writers, Mike Flynn and Stuart Anderson, say Republicans are “violating their pledge for smaller government” with legislation that, if enacted, would force all businesses in America to actually check on the information job seekers provide companies when they fill out a job application.  Well, who, other than illegal immigrants, would have a need to use false identification?  Prisoners, perhaps, who, after having served their sentence, have been released and are seeking employment.  Many businesses will not hire criminals, for obvious reasons, and using a fake, or stolen, identity is often the only way they can fool prospective businesses into hiring them.  Democrats, it should come as no shock, support legislation allowing prisoners to vote.  Any wonder why?

Writes Flynn and Anderson:

This questionable bill, which would affect job seekers and job creators alike, is awaiting word from the Republican House leadership on when it will come to the full House for a vote.

E-Verify, in this day and age, is hardly “questionable”.   It is an imperative tool all businesses need, whether they want it or not.  Never mind, for a moment, that illegal immigrants take away jobs from Americans.  E-verify is a safety feature which protects Americans from those people who would seek to harm them.  With regards to illegal immigrants, most just want to work.  However, some come to America specifically to spy and to plot terrorist attacks.  E-Verify is crucial for helping to prevent this.  It also helps cut down on identity theft.  If your social security number was stolen, and your vital, personal information was being used by someone else, wouldn’t you want to know?  And wouldn’t you support a system, like E-Verify, that would help catch the perpetrators?

Writes Flynn and Anderson

“A Pledge to America,” the Republican document released during last year’s congressional campaign, stated quite plainly: “Our plan stands on the principles of smaller, more accountable government; economic freedom … ” To be credible, conservatives cannot be about less government during a campaign season and months later support the largest federal intrusion into workplace hiring in recent memory.

The Republican “pledge to America” is indeed simple and straightforward, and remains the same “pledge” it has been for decades – lower taxes, less government, more personal freedom.

No where do Republicans support “no government”.  Republicans favor less, but more responsible, government.  The “intrusion” as these two writers call it, comes from the illegal immigrants themselves, using fake or stolen identification to gain employment.  The “intrusion” comes from liberals and Democrats who block legislation like E-Verify in their undying support of illegal immigration – a voting block Democrats absolutely need to win elections.

If E-Verify actually increases the size of government, and if Flynn and Anderson are worried that this “violation” hurts the reputation of Republicans, this can easily be remedied and off set by abolishing such Federal Departments as Education, HUD, Agriculture, Commerce, Transportation and Energy – to name a few.  (Maybe that will help Rick Perry.)

To be “credible” Flynn and Anderson wrote a hack piece.  So did Eleanor Clift.  However, the only “hacking” any of them managed to do was to their own credibility and reputations.  In their scurried efforts to slam Republicans, what they inevitably showed was how shallow Democrats are, and need to be, in order to win elections.

Isn’t that pathetic?

Post Navigation


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 61 other followers

%d bloggers like this: