Grassroots Commentary

Legalizing Gay Marriage vs the Constitution

Adrien Nash · Apr. 1, 2013

The case in defense of California’s Proposition 8 has put the justices of the Supreme Court in a corner and they aren’t sure what to do or whether or not to even accept the proposition that the People have a right to defend their state constitution’s amendments or propositions if the political hacks running the state aren’t willing to defend state law before the court. They probably are hesitant to impose federal rulings regarding an institution as fundamental as marriage since it’s inherently a state matter.

The argument that homosexuals are being denied equal rights is absurd on its face because marriage has always been a discriminating institution, being as one cannot marry a tree, an animal, a child, a sibling or parent, multiple wives or husbands, a dead person, nor a member of the same sex.

The People decide what state law is and federal judges have no authority under the constitution to over-ride conventional social norms that do not involve being denied a civil or human right. Marriage is a civil right only to the extent that society, religion, human nature, natural law and biological science validate it. The State has no moral basis to decide what the morality of the People must be nor that they and their government must legitimize something which is outside of all moral foundations since all moral foundations are inherently based on “The Word of God” (and not ever-changing opinions). No other moral standards meet the meaning of that which is foundational.

The government, judges, mayors, governors and legislators do not have a right to tell the People what their religious foundations must be or not be anymore than the government possesses fundamental ownership of your children and can take them whenever you fail to carry-out its orders and social engineering rules and laws. But instead of knowing the limits of its authority, the government acknowledges no limits on its power as we saw with the Health Care bill and the Supreme Court’s lopsided ruling on it. As with the push to redefine marriage, the meaning of the word “penalty” was reassigned a new meaning by chief traitor Roberts when he choose to assert that it also means “tax”, because they both involve payment of money to the government – thus they must be the same thing. Next month you will have to pay the IRS an annual “income penalty”. If you are almost late in filing, don’t speed to the Post Office and end up getting a ticket or “speeding tax”.

Under the rule of Law and not men (with their opinions and preferences), to institute a fundamental change in society requires securing the permission of the People via an amendment to the Constitution, state or federal, just as was the case with Prohibition, the end of slavery, and allowing women the right to vote. Since there is no amendment to the Constitution securing the right of homosexuals to marry, the right is not and never has been secured in statutory law nor constitutional amendment, so how in the world can they claim a right that has never existed?

Their claim to such a right is made in the total absence of any history to support it. The States have always interfered in the legal contract of marriage because of the legal issues involved, even requiring a “license” accompanied by a fee. What “right” requires a license and a fee? Do you have to register and get a license before having and owning your own baby? Before buying and owning property? Growing food?

Those who qualify for a marriage license fit a criteria decided on by the People or their representatives, not judges. Judges have no moral authority to tell the People what social norms are to be, except when laws are passed that violate human rights, such as slavery laws, or social disenfranchisement laws that bar some people from voting or mixing equally in society.

Those rights are fundamental in that they ban discrimination, but the proposition passed by the California voters (Prop. 8) bans nothing. It merely declares that the State’s official definition of marriage is that which it has always been since time immemorial. It’s like a defense of the English language and the meaning of its words versus a bastardization of the definitions of words, as the Communists engaged in by inserting the word “Democratic” in the name of their oppressive totalitarian regimes.

As Abraham Lincoln pointed out: “Calling a dog’s tail a leg does not make it a leg.” So calling a homosexual union “marriage” is a bastardization of the word and a degradation of the language. It is something and it is real but it is like aspartame compared to sugar, like an imitation flavor instead of the real thing. It’s like fraternal twins compared to identical twins. Fraternal twins are called twins but they really aren’t twins because to be a twin means to be identical.

To alter the law of the land, and to alter the very meaning of a word for an institution as old as civilization itself, is to make a change that requires the consent of the People, not simply the consensus opinion of five individuals who sit as gods and can force the nation to bend to their will or viewpoint. That is just as wrong as effecting Prohibition via a 51% vote of Congress.

When the nation makes a dramatic turn, it requires the approval of the People, not just the approval of a simple majority of their elected representatives or one swing vote on the high court. That is a fact that is fundamental to the rule of law and not the rule of capricious public, or judicial, or legislative, or executive opinion.

All the blather about how public opinion is changing is irrelevant because fundamental change is illegitimate if effected by government and not by the vote of the People. But do you hear any talk from anyone about Congress writing and passing by a two-thirds majority, a constitutional amendment to make homosexual “marriage” the law of the land, which then must be adopted by three quarters of the State governments? If you hold your breath waiting to hear such talk, you will die of hypoxia because no one in our Constitution-ignoring government even acknowledges the existence of the 5th Amendment which spells out the only legitimate means to fundamentally “transform” America.

Our ignorant, indifferent, and constitutionally treasonous government can’t acknowledge the Constitution because it spells out just how the nation is to be governed and that presents a gigantic roadblock to the institutions of the federal government exercising the maximum power that they can illegitimately assert over the People.

To do otherwise would make the government subservient to the People, but those who wield the government’s power are unwilling to be subservient to those who they exist to serve. Why? Because they choose to believe that they have been given power that they have not been given, and which they have even been prohibited from exercising, as is clearly stated in the 9th and 10th Amendments.

But then those old irrelevant things are just sort of guidelines and following them is strictly optional. After all, that’s how the government ran before they became a part of it, and that’s how it will run after they leave it, and the people have never really complained because they just keep re-electing the same old oath-breaking liars that roll that way, over and over and over again.

Do you see any light at the end of this tunnel? I’m not sure we’re in a tunnel. It’s more like a moonless twilight The sun is now below the horizon, having set on constitutional liberty and the supremacy of individual rights, and we are now entering a night of government-overlord statist authoritarianism led by invisible oligarchs and faceless bureaucrats laying down the law for a nation of OJ Simpson and Robert Blake jurors. The aggressive blind leading the passive and ignorant blind.

Like the frog in the pot of water, its warmth feels pretty good, much better than the cold water of individual reliance and responsibility, and if it becomes boiling hot? Well that won’t happen because only “now” exists, and there is no tomorrow.

It's Right. It's Free.