The Country Can Evolve – But Only in a Liberal Direction

Isn’t it funny?

The Supreme Court tells us that the country is “evolving” and therefore a liberal slant on things must be endorsed, even as more and more states pass laws that specifically oppose what they are trying to do.

It’s an old trick the liberals on the court use. Anything they want, they pretend that the country is getting to be more and more like them. Even if it isn’t.

Today, John Podesta and some other dude claim the country is evolving to embrace gay marriage. But it isn’t. If anything, the country has firmly, firmly, firmly, firmly rejected gay marriage. If there is a trend, it is against gay marriage.

As the country evolved, the meaning of one small word — “all” — has evolved as well. Our nation’s Founders reaffirmed in the Declaration of Independence the self-evident truth that “all Men are created equal,” and our Pledge of Allegiance concludes with the simple and definitive words “liberty and justice for all.” Still, we have struggled mightily since our independence, often through our courts, to ensure that liberty and justice is truly available to all Americans.

The civil rights decisions of the 60’s were broadly popular. Polls showed, over and over again, something like 60-70 percent of the public agreed with those decisions. The court was simply enforcing the popular will.

But with gay marriage, it is different. Depending on the state, up to 80% are against gay marriage. They realize that once marriage is based on people loving something or someone, there no longer are any logical boundaries at all to marriage. And so the inevitable consequence is the destruction of marriage as an institution. If gay marriage passes, then polygamy, and any other arrangement, whetherwith man, beast or inanimate object, is not far behind. Canada is starting to say that polygamy is a right; and  European countries are starting to investigate whether people should be married to inanimate objects.

Think I am being silly?

The Eiffel  Tower

A Roller Coaster.

A pillow.

The Berlin Wall.

Once marriage breaks down, the civilization breaks down. It’s as simple as that.

Thanks to the genius of our Framers, who separated power among three branches of government, our courts have been able to take the lead — standing up to enforce equal protection, as demanded by the Constitution — even when the executive and legislative branches, and often the public as well, were unwilling to confront wrongful discrimination.

So, the courts are the most powerful organ of government. Exactly the opposite of the framer’s intentions. They called it the least dangerous branch, because it had no will of its own. At least that is how they designed it. But things have changed. Now, it is able to overthrow legislatures, etc. This is fine when there is a clear instance of unconstitutionality, as there was in Brown v. Board, or any of the other civil rights decisions. But here there is no obvious discrimination. Gay people have exactly the same rights to marry others as heterosexuals do. They may marry anyone of another sex they please. The fact that this does not  please them is irrelevant, because the constitution does not require that the choice offered to each person please them, it only demands that they be allowed the very same choice offered to anyone else.

So we are not talking about equal protection here. We are not talking about the constitution at all. We are talking about something that MUST originate in the legislatures, if at all. The courts have no power here.

More nonsense:

Indeed, the Supreme Court issued its Loving ruling in the face of widespread opposition. A Gallup poll taken within months of the decision found that 74 percent of the American public “disapproved” of interracial marriage. Nevertheless, the court vindicated those constitutional rights to which every American is entitled. As we look back, the Loving decision is hailed as an example of the best in American jurisprudence.

The public approved of the decision. But they disapproved of interracial marriage in general because. at the time, they felt that the children suffered. Note that they did not disapprove of the decision. It was the right decision. But most people believed then that interracial marriages were very difficult, would subject those in them to unnecessary trouble and pain, and hurt the children. That’s why the poll came out the way it did. Not because people thought there should be legal bars against interracial marriage; they just thought it was not practical.

They then go on to talk about polls that supposedly show suport for gay marriage, but it is easy tor liberals to fake up a poll. They do it all the time.

Remember this: the Massachusetts supreme court imposed gay marriage on their state in Goodrich v. Dept of Public Health. The decision talked about how necessary it was for these women to be married. It talked about how thoroughly committed they were to one another, and how they even had a child.

A year later, they divorced.

Gays can live together, and create any life they want to create together. They don’t need marriage to do that. For years, liberals told us that marriage is just a scrap of paper, that it was not important, and people should just live together as man and wife if they wanted. Now, liberals tell us that even though gays have no trouble living together and creating a life together, and adopting kids, and buying a house and yard and a dog, NOW that scrap of paper is the most important thing in the world. Most research shows that gay relationships do not last as long as heterosexual relationships. Some gay academics and writers even insist that gay relationships must have a built in allowance for extramarital affairs, since affairs happen so often in gay relationships. Indeed, some consider extramarital relatioinships fundamental to gay life.

Let’s not pretend here.

Comments are closed.