Despite the passage of Proposition 8, the effort to push faux marriage and thwart the will of Californians continues unabated.

It’s said that history repeats itself. Nevertheless, we seem to live in unprecedented times, and a case in point is the issue of faux marriage. There certainly have been civilizations that accepted homosexuality – the ancient Spartans institutionalized it in their military training camps, for example – but I don’t know of even one that took such leave of its senses that it proposed to sanction homosexuals’ pretense at marriage.

In fact, so great is the zeal of the destroyers of civilization for faux marriage that they are actually willing to violate the law to establish it. On November 4, Californians voted to create a constitutional amendment banning the practice, thereby overriding the state Supreme Court, which in May had ruled to legalize it. This should be it, right? After all, the court is supposed to be constrained by the constitution, and the people have voted to enshrine the proper definition of marriage in that governing document. Ah, but where there is a warped will, there is a wicked way.

Opponents of the proposition have now filed a lawsuit to block it, and the powers that be are allying themselves with the lawless. It’s said that the Ca. High Court may actually take up the case (which makes me wonder what it’s high on), and legislators and government bodies are lining up with protesting radical activists in forming a phalanx against the people’s will. And, outrageously, at the head of this army of the lost is Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger. Proving himself either profoundly ignorant of civics and/or thoroughly contemptuous of the citizenry, he actually said:

“It's unfortunate, obviously, but it's not the end. I think that we will again maybe undo that, if the court is willing to do that, and then move forward from there and again lead in that area.”

This is staggering. Schwarzenegger is thus saying he is willing to work in concert with the Supreme Court as a de facto oligarchy that will govern as it pleases in defiance of the people. It matters not if the citizens’ will accords with the constitution; if the black-robed oracles divine that we rubes are wrong, they will simply decree otherwise. Have you heard of jury nullification? This is jurist nullification.

So public officials have now traded constitutional principles for a Machiavellian one: the end justifies the means. Thomas Jefferson spoke of this danger, writing:

“A judiciary independent of a king or executive alone, is a good thing; but independence of the will of the nation is a solecism, at least in a republican government.”

"To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men, and not more so. They have, with others, the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps.”

“A usurping judiciary will become a despotism.”

I’ll add that since elected officials swear an oath to uphold their constitution just as judges do, none of them has any legal right to propose or encourage policy that violates it. But this is lost on virtually all. It’s common nowadays to just roll the dice, to play the shyster and say, “Let’s throw this into the courts – maybe it’ll fly.”

This isn’t surprising. Our political class is replete with lawyers, and this is how lawyers behave (although Schwarzenegger doesn’t have this excuse). Whether or not a position is constitutional is secondary, if seriously considered at all; instead, they only ask, “How can I win in court for my side?” It’s reminiscent of mob attorney Bruce Cutler pleading the innocence of mafia don John Gotti or Johnny Cochran chanting “If it doesn’t fit, you must acquit!” And, really, those two men and our lawyerocracy represent two classes of lawyers that share a similarity: they both comprise criminal defense attorneys. The difference is, one defends criminal people and the other criminal positions. That is to say, if a position contravenes the supreme law of the land or state – the constitution in question – it’s by definition “against the law.”

Frankly speaking, Schwarzenegger should be impeached if possible. If not, he should be recalled just like his predecessor, Gray Davis, as he seems bent on proving he is nothing but seemingly real American tissue over a socialist European endoskeleton.

Unfortunately, though, marriage (note: I don’t say “traditional marriage,” as that implies there is another kind. There isn’t) is likely to be recalled before Sacramento’s sultan of social decay will. Proposition 8 passed with a narrow 52 percent majority, and the left is working feverishly to ensure that future voters won’t be so disposed. As to this, Charlie Butts and Marty Cooper report on how kindergartners at Ringgold School of Art and Science in Hayward, Ca., celebrated “Coming Out Day,” writing:

‘This is an event where they have pictures [and] posters up, telling stories and encouraging people who feel that they are homosexual or opposite gender to freely express that and articulate and affirm that,’ Dacus [Brad Dacus, founder of Pacific Justice Institute] explains.

. . . On November 20, the school will host ‘TransAction Gender-Bender Read-Aloud,’ where students will hear adapted tales such as ‘Jane and the Beanstalk.’

Yet, while the governor puts his muscle behind unconstitutional actions, he is silent on this.

Of course, don’t be surprised. When asked many years ago by Bill O’Reilly if his status as a “conservative” caused him to be shunned in Hollywood, Schwarzenegger replied that it hadn’t because while he is fiscally conservative, he is socially liberal. But a note to the governor: a man who is merely fiscally conservative is often just a leftist who is cheap.

Arnold Schwarzenegger, is a man as oblivious to moral law as he is to man’s. And, of course, those two defects do tend to be kissin’ same-sex cousins.

TrackBack URI for this entry

Comments (5)

Subscribe to this comment's feed

Show/Hide comments

Lee Gonzales said:

... Constitutionalists, or those who claim to be adherents of the "rule of law," (based on the Founders' model of the American Republic), fail to see that this concept of self rule requires individuals living in this system to also rule themselves. This is the difficulty in explaining to new adherents or new converts to republicanism that a system such as this system, which was designed mostly on the "golden rule," demands self control. A nation of millions of people whose consciences don't bother them when committing acts of cheating, or using the power of government to figure out ways to take another man's property won't have "self rule" for very long before it is replaced by rule of the tyrant. Here is where the Ten Commandments come in handy to clear up the confusion that clouds the issue of homosexuality with the issue of "rights." You can't possibly put every single right in the Constitution or assume that every single act engaged by humans should be protected by the Constitution. That would certainly lead very quickly to the disappearance of all rights for everyone. Homosexuals claim they have a "right " to marry. The Constitution does not grant people the right to marry, but people do marry and have married. Amendment I says that the federal government shall not make a law "respecting an establishment of religion." Since marriage is a religious ceremony then the Courts should know and Congressmen should also know that any law passed by Congress granting certain special interest groups special privileges regarding a religious ceremony will violate Amendment I. The States can pass an amendment or a law clarifying to the courts that marriage is only marriage because it adheres to the religious ceremony that all religious people from time immemorial have long established. You can't come in like some "Johnny-come- lately" and say that "well, that was then and this is now and marriage is whatever I say it is, not what some old religious tradition claims it is." If you say that then what is to stop someone from entering your home and taking your laptop and emptying out your frig and taking all your baloney? The thief could rationalize by saying to you: "I need your stuff man. The Supreme Court sez as long as I need it I can take it! Man, you're talking "old school" and this is new school. I want your laptop to order me an internet bride and I need baloney for my guests." Be cool, man, let live or we gonna come get ya!" Without those moral restraints that we freely accept we can not maintain this system of "self rule" under a republic. Without them we won't last very long because an immoral people are incapable of governing themselves. I won't buy this line that homosexuals have a "right" to marry. You can call it a right all you want but it doesn't make it one. "The seventh (Commandment), establishes the principle of contract-the inviolability of promises given by persons to each other and the double sanctity of the marriage contract, which is the basis of the family." - Henry Grady Weaver in "Mainspring of Human Progress." Homsexuality boiled down to its true essence is the violation of the above quote. It constitutes an attack on civilization. Distractions and twisted arguments won't succeed in convincing the world of it being just another "alternative " lifestyle. Anyone with eyes can see that homosexuality is the style of losers.

report abuse vote down vote up

November 22, 2008
Votes: +3

crittergal said:

Shifting the debate The Main Stream Media (MSM) programs people like little automatons and they react according to the progammers' instructions. I've noticed that "rights" seem to be the catch phrase that these groups use to get attention and then to gain acceptance among the populace. The writer points out that with rights come responsibility. The Ten Commandments is an eternal guide for individuals and nations to follow a path to greater freedom. The "gay" rights path leads to less freedom and misery along the road. Without people respecting private property there wouldn't be any private property. The most ruthless among us would take over and rule with an iron fist. The same can be said of the so-called "gay" activists who use the velvet glove of "rights" and all the touchy feely propaganda to hide the iron fist that they are ready to unleash when they acquire power. Please visit Canada and see for yourself how the Catholic priests are being taken to court for calling homosexuality a sin. The traditions of the Catholic church are being cast aside in favor of the new church teachings of the MSM. It's all a con. Homosexuality is nothing but a violation of the intellectual private property of God's church on this earth. In order for "rights" to have any meaning they first must be based on the the manner in which those rights fit perfectly with God's plan of eternal Truth.

report abuse vote down vote up

November 23, 2008
Votes: +1

BillSchultz said:

... "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.” Those 14 hate-filled, homophobic-inspired, words of prejudice and intolerance have caused a major hullabaloo in California as thousands of marchers have taken to the streets to communicate their anger In particular, protesters have targeted the LDS Church for that church’s member financial contribution and political support for Prop. 8. Protesters are threatening to create a national firestorm as they congregate, shout, and DEMAND! Demand what? The right to vote in free and open elections? That free and open election be banned when the results do not suit their minuscule minority and its agenda? Free speech and other rights set forth in the Bill of Rights? An end to discrimination against gays in housing, employment, and education? The right to enter into relationships with same sex partners openly and freely, without being harassed by straight citizens and governments? A Constitutional ban on any religious expression which holds that homosexual behavior is sinful? That an unwilling American public be forced to accept the notion that gay marriage is a right, the infringement of which constitutes a civil rights evil on a par with slavery and Jim Crow laws? Instead of protesting against free religious expression, the protesters should actually take their signs and threats of violence to the headquarters of La Raza and NAACP to demand that those tax-exempt organizations convince Latinos and African-Americans that same-sex marriage is indeed a “civil rights” issue. And why not work to convince the most liberal man ever elected to the U.S. presidency to include acceptance of gay marriage in his CHANGE agenda? After all, President-elect Obama has been very clear: He is opposed to same-sex marriage!

report abuse vote down vote up

November 24, 2008
Votes: -1

Lee Gonzales said:

Impeach a few holier than thou judges Why can't the States pass a law clarifying to the courts that marriage is only marriage because it adheres to the religious ceremony that all religious people from time immemorial have long established? The republic was constructed by the states and therefore the states can decide what is marriage and what is bogus. Is the will of the people superior to a judge? I say it is. The people in the state of California should start impeaching and removing these judges from the bench! They'll only "get it' when they are thrown out on their ear.

report abuse vote down vote up

November 25, 2008
Votes: +0

Charles_Byrd said:

	Recall Efforts A representative of the Pacific Justice Institute has said that a recall effort will be launched against Judges that overturn Prop 8.
	report abuse vote down vote up

November 25, 2008
Votes: +0