One Big Gay Mistake

6

The ruling on Proposition 8 is potentially the Roe v. Wade of this generation. Patriots all over the Country are rising up motivated primarily in opposition to profligate Federal spending. There is a huge undercurrent desire to restore State Sovereignty which is unique in the American experiment. Our Founding Fathers meant for an extremely limited Federal government to handle only those duties expressly assigned to them and let the States handle most. They even clarified this position with the 10th Amendment which expressly reserved power to the States. Had you told a Founder in Philadelphia in 1779, that you believed the federal government should be regulating abortion “rights” or marriage “questions” they would have locked you up in an asylum as clearly delusional.

So one should not be surprised that progressives who could find a Constitutional right to “privacy” buried deep in the penumbras of that precious document, could also find a Constitutional “right” for men to marry men or a man to marry multiple women for that matter. How about the right of a Missouri man who did his State proud by telling the BBC that he wanted to marry his horse?

So we have two salient questions. The first is whether or not gay marriage should be allowed. The question raised today is what to do now that the far left in their misguided zeal and love of totalitarian government has totally usurped the authority of people to come together in their “several states” and pass the laws they see fit. It is shocking and utterly appalling that such a clear position as expressed by a solid majority of the people of California could be set aside by one pompous ass appointed judge. The arrogance and judicial irresponsibility produced a hideous new conflict. The fact that the judge is rumored to be gay doesn’t give that majority a lot of faith in his impartiality.

State Sovereignty advocates who favor a limited Federal role now have to consider a position I now must grudgingly endorse–the only way to respect the rights of Californians and solid majorities in nearly every State that has had a simple up or down referendum on gay marriage, is to pass a United States Constitutional Amendment declaring marriage to be between one man and one woman.

In a society where most would fight for one’s right to live freely in the lifestyle they would choose, the militant left has pushed people into a corner. That same freedom loving mega-majority will now be left to fight for their position on a National scale, and my guess is that the greed the left has started will end in a grand finale they would never have wanted to begin with.

  • Dr. Gina, we have been working closely with the Clayton Police and St. Louis Parks departments. The last time I checked, gay or straight Americans do not need a permit to assemble and protest on the sidewalks of our city. This is a right afforded to me and you from our great US Constitution.

    Just wanted to clear that up for you since you seemed worried about our permit status.

    • Gina Loudon

      Dear SMNH:

      Thank you for clearing that up! I have received some threatening phone calls regarding this post, and I think that is sad for a group claiming “no hate.” I believe in, and would fight for your right to free speech and assembly. I think we should ALL be concerned when a judge overturns the will of the people, as the one did in the CA Prop 8 case. Further, I wish I didn’t believe States’ rights to regulate such issues were ultimately at peril. I don’t think that is the direction any of us wishes to go.

      Sincerely,

      gina

  • I totally agree, Dr. Gina! I think the biggest issue here is that one judge thinks he can take over the votes of 7,000,000 Californians. Liberals are all about Democracy and the Popular vote until it works against them. Than the federal judge steps in. The founding fathers are rolling in their graves at the hypocrisy and blatant disregard for the system. Regardless of the issue. Check out my blog post on this exact topic: http://bit.ly/aGEOXf.

  • Dr. Loudon, I enjoy your blog and what I’ve heard from you on the radio. I do not agree, though, that you should endorse a constitutional amendment as the strategy to fight this travesty. I invite you to my response at http://outlinesofsanity.blogspot.com/2010/08/one-bigger-gay-mistake.html

  • Gina

    Before abandoning the Limited Federal Power/States Sovereignty doctrines in favor of a Federal marriage definition/gay marriage ban, please remember that even in Granola-Land CA, the land of fruits, nuts, and flakes; the MAJORITY voted for Prop 8. Let it be settled by CALIFORNIA. The law enacted by Prop 8 will be defended BY CALIFORNIA thru the courts. The loony judge will be overturned, as his ruling is completely specious and holds no legal water. Whether by the 9th circuit (most liberal circuit court in the USA) or by SCOTUS, CALIFORNIA’s Prop 8 law will ultimately be ruled valid and in force.

    While we must stand against the re-definition of marriage (on the state level) we should point out that the legal advantages sought such as medical and inheritance issues can be addressed WITHOUT redefining marriage thru CIVIL UNIONS.

    But we must not contradict our PRIMARY FUNDAMENTAL principles on limited Federal Power and State Sovereignty in order to make a point on a single social issue. We must not allow the argument that Conservatives oppose government power EXCEPT when they want to use it to push THEIR agenda.

  • Gina, I have to respectfully agree with Jason. There is no way in hades that there is a right to a Christian marriage between two gay individuals found in the U. S. Constitution. For us to admit that the looney left has found such a right and then attempt to amend the Constitution to remove the right is admitting defeat and trying to reclaim truth when it is there all along. We are admitting defeat not only on the issue of marriage but these silly penumbras that the court has found contrary to the clear intent of the 10th Amendement. Jason has the right idea. We did it with Prop C. We can do it with marriage. The states should reclaim their position as the superior covenantal parter and say “We denied you that authority in the beginning and we still deny you that authority.”