Tag Archives: Proposition 8

You No-Longer Have State’s Rights! You Have Government-Provided Allowances

chained

chained 

 

Whether or not everyone agrees with or supports same-sex marriage is beside the point when individual state’s are being ripped from the people and states.

What is most important today is our government—federal, as well as state and local. It has overreached into our Fourth Amendment rights by invading our homes and lives to redefine us, now government has decided it has full rights to redefine all of our 10th Amendment states.    

Congratulations, you no longer have State’s Rights, you have government-provided allowances!

Whether or not Americans—gay or straight—continue to have 10 Amendment Rights, or anything written and singed into the Bill of Rights, should be of great concern to all. Facts are facts: We Americans have handed over our lives to the government that tells us it is better capable of determining our lives, life-styles, religion, how we speak, act, think, talk, spend our money, whether or not we can conduct businesses without government regulation and control, and so forth.

We allow the government to convince us that the Supreme Court is a superlative entity so infallible; it is the second coming of Christ in nine black robes–Judicial Supremacy.

Don’t bother trying to find that phrase in the Constitution. The supreme Court invented it in 1958 with the Cooper v. Aaron case: “[T]he Supreme Court for the first time, made the sweeping assertion that ‘The federal judiciary is supreme in exposition of the law of the Constitution.'”  And there’s  “no mention of the power of judicial review in the Constitution,” because the Founders did not want the Supreme Court to be “supreme in the exposition of laws of the Constitution.” The court upholds the law, but they are not the lawmakers:

judicial power was to decide cases according to law. The judicial power was given to the federal courts. And that Article VI tells you when you want to find out what the law is, where to go. And the Constitution is there.

 

But Americans took the bait, allowing the Supreme Court and Federal Government to define our lives and how we should live.

For some bizarre reason, many Americans enjoy being shackled to a government ordered society that strips people of all free will.

Gov Screws You

The latest Supreme Court ruling striking down the Defense of Marriage Act was followed by the sending of Proposition 8 back to California, where it technically belongs.

You’ll have to excuse me, I foolishly assume that California voters, who voted against same sex marriage in their state, have rights to vote freely for laws and policies they want and do not want in their individual state, which has nothing to do with the other 49 individual states.  

Apparently I’ve been misinterpreting the 10th Amendment which states “The Powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

Notice “to the people,” who no longer have a say concerning their individual states and lives. Activists must decide, because the Federal Government has made activists the final arbiters of the Constitution’s laws.

Some individuals, gay and straight, do not agree with same sex marriage. Some of those individuals do not agree with heterosexual couples living together outside of marriage.  Many voters disagree with single motherhood. Whatever one’s social views, shouldn’t individuals have rights to express those beliefs and opinions without the Federal Government invading states and mandating government judgment upon the people?

Not according to the government. You see, if people think and act through self-determination, they understand every person is a God-created being with free thought and will. Free-thinking people will in fact determine the truth that lie within the Constitution and understand their rights. When that happens, as in 1776 signing of the Declaration of Independence, all hell breaks loose and government loses its grip of control, while people gain liberty.

That cannot be allowed in a country where government elites wish to rewrite liberty in the government’s image!

Look what former Michigan Supreme Court Justice Professor Steven Markham of Hillsdale College says concerning activists rewriting the Constitution and Amendments:

Proponents of a ‘21st century constitution’ or ‘living constitution’ aim to transform our nation’s supreme law beyond recognition—and with a minimum of public attention and debate. Indeed, if there is an overarching theme to what they wish to achieve, it is the diminishment of the democratic and representative processes of American government. It is the replacement of a system of republican government, in which the constitution is largely focused upon the architecture of government in order to minimize the likelihood of abuse of power, with a system of judicial government, in which substantive policy outcomes are increasingly determined by federal judges. Rather than merely defining broad rules of the game for the legislative and executive branches of government, the new constitution would compel specific outcomes.

 

This week’s Supreme Court rulings are not truly a gay-straight issue, rather a state-by-state’s rights issue being abused in order to rip liberty from every individual’s hands, making people subjects of Washington politicians seeking the gay vote to keep politicians in power in case the black and single female poverty vote ever fails to continue its magical spell of oppression for personal power.

If gays really think the Federal Government desiresautonomy for individual, they are kidding themselves. Gay Americans are the latest propaganda means used by greedy politicians and leftist activists seeking further erosion of the 10th Amendment for political self-gain.

Markham notes that

Since shortly after the Civil War, the privileges or immunities clause of the 14th Amendment has been understood as protecting a relatively limited array of rights that are a function of American federal citizenship, such as the right to be heard in courts of justice and the right to diplomatic protection. In defining the protections of the privileges or immunities clause in this manner, the Supreme Court in the Slaughterhouse Cases (1873) rejected the argument that the clause also protects rights that are a function of state citizenship, asserting that this would lead to federal courts serving as a ‘perpetual censor’ of state and local governments. This decision has served as a bulwark of American federalism. Although a considerable amount of federal judicial authority has since been achieved over the states through interpretations of the due process clause of the 14th Amendment, many proponents of a 21st century constitution seek additional federal oversight of state and local laws. Their strategy in this regard is to refashion the privileges or immunities clause as a new and essentially unlimited bill of rights within the 14th Amendment. The practical consequences of this would be to authorize federal judges to impose an ever broader and more stultifying uniformity upon the nation. Whatever modicum of federalism remains extant at the outset of this century, considerably less would remain tomorrow.

 

Unlimited rights not in the Constitution are already pushed for power.

The Federal government has poverty votes generating more black poverty via racism. Where’s the 10th Amendment right to not have government tell a particular race of human beings how and where to live because of race and skin color? It’s there, but government convinced black Americans that slavery incurred black poverty and teen pregnancy and government running black lives is the only way to become emancipated.  

Darn Abe Lincoln for not signing that Emancipation Bill!

Don’t forget the War On Women: Single women were convinced if they don’t vote Democrat, they will lose their breasts to cancer! Suddenly free birth control means you receive already performed mammograms in America where legalized abortion is not legal enough.

Quick Note: Even if Roe V Wade were overturned, abortion would still be legal in Democrat controlled states, especially Massachusetts where Democrat politicians do the over-crowded planet a favor by drowning the pregnant woman with the baby.

Then there’s the Amnesty Bill: Shock! Illegal aliens are forbidden to live in a country they illegally entered. That’s because white Republicans hate immigration and the only way immigrants can enter America is illegally.

But that’s not enough to abolish the 10th Amendment and your stat’s rights.

Progressive leftist activists have been clamoring to place gay Americans in the Emancipation Proclamation. Gays have been enslaved! Gays are forbidden same-sex marriage! The last time I checked marriage is not a Constitutional Amendment; marriage is not a federally mandated rule of law, rather state-by-state laws: Couples must go to their local town hall to obtain marriage licenses. But progressive activists are determined that marriage become a Federal Government law providing marriage rights.

Look out America! Don’t think the day can’t come when D.C. mandates marriage and Americans beg D.C. for marriage licenses. Imagine being told:  “Sorry, you can’t get married if the government does not have a marriage equality quota of gay, straight, black, white, Christian, Jewish, Muslim (which will no doubt demand Sharia Law be pushed into a Constitutional amendment) polygamy marriages (don’t assume polygamists are not plotting to get their marriages federally legalized), etc.

It could happen in America with a progressive government that signed off on the Constitution.

We are not looking ahead, but allowing government to mandate our lives, while destroying the Constitution and our rights.

Gay Rights Debate Reaches the Supreme Court

by Jeremy Griffith

HRC symbol appearing on Facebook promoting gay marriage issue

HRC symbol appearing on Facebook promoting gay marriage issue

Have you noticed a strange symbol showing up on the Internet, especially Facebook? There is a red block with two pink horizontal and parallel bars showing up on FB to replace people’s profile pics. This symbol is an alteration of the more commonly seen emblem of the Human Rights Commission, an organization that supports gay rights, (normally seen as two gold parallel horizontal bars on a purple field). There is an article today in HuffPo that explains this very thing.

The reason for the promotion of this symbol is to show support for gay marriage nationwide as the controversial Proposition 8 is being discussed in the Nation’s Supreme Court. This California Law is the legally binding law, approved of by the voting public of California defining marriage as the relationship between one man and one woman, effectively banning the relationship of any other type.

Now, let’s get this straight, I am not in favor of gay marriage of any type, as I am a Christian and I believe in what the Bible has to say on this issue. I will never be in favor of gay rights per say. Whenever homosexuality or any sexual perversion is mentioned in the Bible, bad things happen, (regardless of straight or gay). But from a purely intellectual standpoint, I understand and respect what the gay lobby is trying to do.

Currently, no one is being treated substantially different under the current law of California. Gay people have the same rights as straight couples; they have the right to marry someone of the opposite sex. Of course, that’s not what they want. What they want is special treatment to marry someone of the same sex, which is a special status not currently allowed.

HRC's normal symbol often seen as a bumper sticker.

HRC’s normal symbol often seen as a bumper sticker.

Now from a strictly libertarian viewpoint, I don’t really care if gay people are allowed to get married or not. I don’t approve of that type of relationship, but who am I to judge my neighbor, as long as he is not picking my pocket or breaking my leg. I understand that the gay couple wants the same benefits from the government that I would get as a straight person, which include but are not limited to: a) passing on of employment benefits to a domestic partner, b) the privilege to adopt a child, c) the right to visit a sick domestic partner in the hospital without interference from other blood relatives.

These are admirable goals, which I think can be achieved outside of declaring sanction of gay marriage. Why shouldn’t gay couples have these benefits along with any straight couple? Clearly the states can enact specific laws regarding these very complex social issues.

Here is the slippery slop now. I work at the Mayo Clinic. Under current policy the Clinic accepts living wills or powers of attorney for patients diagnosed with terminal illnesses, and it tries to honor those. However, the Clinic will usurp that power of attorney or living will if a blood relative of the patient objects, negating the will of the patient. This is unacceptable whether we’re talking about straight or gay patients, this should not be. If I have gone through the effort to make my will known, why should anyone else, relative or not, be able to simply usurp my will while I lay helpless my deathbed? If you’re gay or straight, it doesn’t matter. Everyone should have their close friends by their side when dealing with a life-threatening or terminal disease. The right of the suffering patients should be considered above that of any other, period!

Obviously we should strengthen the force of powers of attorney and medical directives.

As for the adoption issue, I am fully in favor of letting gay couples adopt so long as social services is being involved. There is no evidence that I have seen that shows that a gay couple is any more or less prone to abuse a child than a straight family. I would rather see a child get a good home than remain wards of the state. Social service involvements can oversee parents, regardless of sexuality, to determine that the child is indeed being received by a safe and stable home.

Then there is the issue of employee and social services benefits. I am all in favor of employers extending benefits to same sex couples, but here again there is a slippery slope. Should the employer have to extend benefits to Muslim or Mormon families where there are multiple wives, multiplying the cost to the employer per the number of beneficiaries? Isn’t that discrimination? Is it fair to the employer?

I think that if we are going to recognize one type of relationship, then we are excluding the others. If we open up the definition of marriage, then we open a barrel of monkeys that will be hard to close. I believe that the employers should extend benefits to one spouse only, to the exclusion of relationships of multiple beneficiaries. But here is where the state can enact laws, with the consent of their citizens, to determine the details.

I have no objection to the individual states enacting laws that make sense to their voters. What I do object to is robed elites at the appellate and Supreme Court levels usurping the will of the voter. Let the people decide what’s best for them and let the courts mind their own business.

The only reason for the court involvement is that this loud and vocal minority cannot be satisfied and must usurp the will of the majority by going over their heads to the appellate and supreme courts. In my view, these courts have no authority to usurp these laws; their only jurisdiction is to determine whether the laws enacted are constitutional. I’ve read the constitution; I don’t think there is any reference there to marriage, gay or otherwise. The only logical decision the courts can do is kick back these lawsuits and let the legislatures do their jobs. But they won’t because there is a certain power and prestige that comes with the judge’s robe and they like to use it to their benefit. The minority concerns like the gay lobby make use of this fact. As long as judges are allowed to legislate from the bench, the will of the majority will be meaningless.

And why should the state be involved in endorsing marriage in the first place? Have we had enough of the nanny state as it is? Why should I as a single person be punished for remaining single while married people get tax breaks (or penalties in some states)? Isn’t this the federal government picking winners and losers? I have an idea, let’s treat everyone the same, with a flat income tax, starting at incomes of $20k or more that taxes everyone at the same rate. Wouldn’t that be fair? No winners or losers, everyone treated the same. Perhaps that’s an issue for another column.

All in all I believe this is a 10th Amendment issue. States have the right, with the consent of their citizens, to determine what laws to enact in their state, and as long as those laws don’t break the constitutional standard, they should remain issues of the state. Where the constitution is silent on an issue, so too should be the court.

Jimmy LaSilvia of GOProud.

Jimmy LaSilvia of GOProud.

I recognize there will be debate even among conservatives and libertarians in regard to this issue. I welcome polite interface with people of differing opinions. My friends at GOProud for instance might have a different take. I respect their opinion. It annoys me that my friend Jimmy LaSilvia and his organization were barred from attending CPAC. As a conservative, I think there is room for debate on these very controversial issues. What there isn’t room for in the Republican and Conservative circles is hatred and name calling. That is reserved for the lockstep Liberals and Progressives. It suits their narrow-mindedness and low tolerance.