By Douglas V. Gibbs
The Liberal Agenda has used techniques and tactics over the past hundred-plus years to move this nation in a progressive, socialist direction. Leftism manipulates the system as much as they can to achieve their aims, regardless of right and wrong, or whether or not contradictions arise. The answer to the question, no matter the question, is not what the right answer to the question might be; the answer to the question is always "whatever benefits the liberal ideology most."
The Contradictions that normally arise from liberal politics are usually subtle by nature. Conservatives notice the inconsistency, but the ever obedient main-extreme media always deems such delineations as acceptable. Eventually, the deviation from consistency becomes a part of forgotten liberal history, and sometimes the facts are even revised, and somehow the populace accepts the new version of it all lock-stock-and-barrel.
Democrats, for example, claim to be the party that supports the minority races. Yet, the Democrat Party filibustered the Civil Rights Act in the sixties, and it took a compromise to get the leftists to be willing to sign on, and pass the legislation in 1964. The progressive Democrats will argue that Democrats like Strom Thurmond became Republicans because the GOP better fit their racist opinions, but the reality of it is that people like Thurmond began the process of turning over a new leaf, and he left the Democrat Party because the extreme racism in that political party was even too much for him, and his fellow party jumpers.
The Democrat Party is also the political force that created the KKK, fought against the Republicans regarding the emancipation of the slaves, and even as recently as this year defended Senator Byrd's history with the Ku Klux Klan because he "needed the votes."
Still, regardless of the glaring contradiction, the American sheep that tend to vote for the Democrat Party believes the party of the donkey when the jackasses proclaim they are post-racial.
Now, there are new, major contradictions with the liberals when it comes to the gay agenda. The contradictions are obvious, yet poo-poo'd away by the raging progressives as not true. I would like us to examine three of those contradictions.
1. Contradictory Rulings in the Judiciary Embraced by the Left.
The Federal Defense of Marriage Act was struck down early last month by a U.S. District judge in Massachusetts. The opinion provided by U.S. District Judge Joseph Tauro is that the law "interferes with the right of a state to define marriage, and therefore denies married gay couples some federal benefits." The important part of this ruling is that the federal judge determined that the right to define marriage is a state authority, and that the federal government must not determine the definition of marriage.
I agree with Judge Tauro, but for reasons different than the ones bouncing around in his progressive head. The powers granted within the U.S. Constitution are granted only to the federal government. The authorities given to the federal government are few. Any power not granted to the federal government, or prohibited to the states, belongs to the states (see Amendment 10).
No place in the U.S. Constitution is there authorization for the federal government to have anything to do with marriage, or gender/lifestyle issues. Therefore, marriage, and all issues relating to gender and lifestyle, are currently a state issue. Only an amendment to the constitution granting such authority to the federal government would change the constitutionality of federal authority over the issue.
That means "any" federal law regarding marriage is unconstitutional, currently.
And, if the liberals were to remain consistent with Judge Tauro's ruling, the logic would be that if the federal government can't ban gay marriage, that would mean they can't legalize it either.
Then along comes U.S. District Judge Walker, and the Proposition 8 battle in California. Proposition 8 "defines" marriage as being between a man and a woman in the California State Constitution. Judge Walker struck it down as being unconstitutional. His argument used Amendment 14 as supporting legal evidence (14th Amendment will be discussed in the next contradiction). By ruling against Proposition 8, which was the people of the State of California defining the term "marriage," Walker contradicted Judge Tauro's ruling, which indicated that the right to define marriage needs to be reserved to the States.
There is no precedent, for one court is not superior to the other, but the very fact that the two cases literally contradict each other when it comes to where the authority to define marriage lies, and the liberal left supports the rulings of both cases, shows that the gay agenda movement is not about the law, consistency, or even logical progression. The judges made their decisions based on their political agenda first, and then tried to apply the law afterward to support their argument. That is not "rule by law." When political activism comes before the law, and consistency within the law, the only term that applies is "judicial tyranny."
2. 14th Amendment's Application To Gender and Lifestyles.
The 14th Amendment was written and ratified shortly after the American Civil War. The purpose of the 14th Amendment was to ensure that the newly emancipated slaves received the same rights and privileges of other American Citizens. Unfortunately, the folks that did not desire such rights and privileges to be granted to the newly freed slaves found ways around the law, and eventually it all culminated in the Civil Rights Movement that some would say still proceeds to this day.
The Gay Agenda has used the 14th Amendment as a supporting argument for their pursuit of marriage in this nation. In fact, the entire argument regarding whether or not the federal government should even be involved with this issue hinges on the determination of whether or not the 14th Amendment applies to gender and lifestyle, or only to race.
There is no evidence that the 14th Amendment was meant to cover anyone other than the newly emancipated slaves, and the 14th Amendment's companion Amendment, the 15th Amendment, specifically states race as being the reason for the Constitutional Amendments.
To determine whether or not the 14th Amendment covers something like gender, rather than only race, all we must do is go back through other liberal left arguments.
The Women's Suffrage Movement understood that the 14th Amendment did not apply to gender, but that it was specifically written regarding the newly freed slaves, and therefore specifically applies only to race. If they believed the 14th Amendment applied to gender, the Women's Rights fight would have never materialized as it did, and there would have been no need for them to push for a new amendment (Equal Rights Amendment) to the U.S. Constitution. And the entire liberal left, the Democrat Party, and everyone else supporting the movement, agreed that the 14th Amendment did not apply to gender, therefore there was a need for the ERA.
I am not stating that I believe women do not deserve equal rights. I believe they already have them, and society's growth through the machinations of women's suffrage was a vital part of that. I disagree, however, when the federal government gets involved. Such issues are something that must arise through the personal drive of these women, and the ability to gain acceptance in the hierarchy of the business world as they deserve. If the federal government is to gain the authority to force quotas in hiring in an effort to reach equality for women, an amendment had to be passed first in order to grant that authority.
My point, however, is that the gay agenda is using the 14th Amendment as the basis of their argument, and the liberal Democrats are backing them on that. This is the same liberal Democrats that claim the 14th Amendment does not apply to gender when it comes to women (hence, the drive for the Equal Rights Amendment). This is a major contradiction in the liberal left's argument. They argue the 14th Amendment did not apply to gender issues for women, but it does for gays?
Once again, the law, or their past arguments regarding the law, does not matter to these people. It is all about their agenda.
3. Separation of Church and State
The argument regarding the Separation of Church and State is not what I am engaging. My reference to the Separation of Church and State is to show the liberal left's contradictory arguments in regards to the gay agenda on this ridiculous issue. Specifically, that there exists a contradiction because leftism believes that "religion" has no business having anything to do with government, nor should a preacher be allowed to preach on political issues, nor should children be able to pray in school. In other words, the concept of the Separation of Church and State to the liberal left disallows the church from encroaching upon the political or public realm, but the government has every right to encroach upon the church.
That's like the idiots that call pro-abortion by the name of "pro-choice," yet argue the only acceptable choice is abortion. How is that "choice?"
First, marriage is not a right, it is a privilege. If it becomes defined as a constitutional right, what will follow is the demand by the gay community that all churches be forced to conduct gay weddings, that gay couples be allowed to join Church sponsored couple's retreats, and that the church no longer teach the biblical doctrine that homosexuality is a sin, otherwise it will be "violating" a gay person's "constitutional rights."
Second, marriage is an emotional fusion of two personalities into a functional operation, yet both retaining their own identities; a concept originated in Biblical text (Genesis 2:24). The act of marrying has historically been carried out by the church, and the roles of the husband and wife have traditionally also followed Biblical definitions. Though marriage has existed in many cultures, and has not necessarily been affected by the biblical standards, even in those cultures, marriage had a "religious" grounding even in those cultures.
One must ask, then, is it not a violation of the liberal idea of the Separation of Church and State for the gay agenda to force upon the church a change in the definition of a word, "marriage," in order to justify a behavior?
The argument that the entire push for gay marriage is in fact an attempt to justify the behavior of homosexuals, and to compromise the basic theology of marriage, as well as destroy the existence of the traditional family unit, is one that I use in light of a number of factors. Civil unions are legal in California, and carries with them the same benefits and privileges of marriage. Therefore, the battle for same-sex marriage is not about the legal implications of marriage to these people. Ultimately, it comes down to the word, "marriage." Proposition 8 in no way outlaws homosexual behavior, nor should it have. It simply asks that the term "marriage" not be redefined by the government to include a kind of union that goes against natural law.
"Marriage." It is simply a word, but with it carries huge religious connections. The demand for gay marriage is not about gaining equality, it is about destroying yet another institution within the church.
Therefore, the definition of the Separation of Church and State by the liberal left is that the church can have nothing to do with government for any reason, at any time, including pastors verbalizing political opinion. But, the liberal left sees no problem with the government dictating to the church the definition of "marriage," and ultimately determining what the church can and can't do, including disallowing Christians to pray on the steps of the Supreme Court, pray in school, wear a Christian shirt in a High School photograph, preach the Word of God (by disallowing sermons that call homosexuality a sin), and ultimately, what kinds of weddings the church is allowed to perform.
That is a major contradiction.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Federal Law Banning Gay Marriage is Unconstitutional - Political Pistachio
Justice Reviews Mass. Rulings on Federal Gay Marriage Ban - NewsMax
The Definition of a Word: Marriage - Fallible Blogma
Students Barred From Praying on Steps of Supreme Court Building - Christian Law Journal
Fountain Valley High School Students Banned From Expressing Religious Message - The Christian Post
The Encyclopedia of Christian Marriage, 1984, Fleming H. Revell Company
No comments:
Post a Comment