We the People… Said No

Eighty Republicans have thrown their lot in with the liberals in signing on to an amicus brief sent to the Supreme Court in preparation for SCOTUS ruling on gay marriage this coming June. In trying to claim the conservative high-ground they have thrown another log on conservatism’s funeral pyre. Hate to break it to them, in essentially encouraging SCOTUS to legislate from the bench, they are saying that they do not care about conservative principles. According to Nicole Wallace, in an interview with Fox News’s Megyn Kelly, had some interesting and slightly disturbing things to say on how supporting gay marriage is the “truly conservative” standpoint, including the idea that the Constitution is an ever evolving document, citing such examples as women’s suffrage and civil rights.

Hmm…Things that make me go hmm. So, Ms. Wallace, you claim you and your cohorts are true conservatives when you say you support using judicial activism to overturn a valid vote in accordance with the laws and constitution of the state of California, stripping the states of yet more of their power, as has been the trend over the last seventy years? You say you all are truly conservatism when you support the destruction of traditional marriage, a cornerstone Western Civilization, and overwriting the concept of heterosexual marriage, a cornerstone of civilization in general? You are truly more conservative than the rest of us using the moniker because you want to give the SCOTUS stamp of approval on sexual deviancy, so long as the “two people love each other”? Just how dumb to do you think we are?

Okay, first off, family is not defined as “two people loving each other.” “Partner A” and “Partner B” does not necessarily add up to nor wholly fulfill the functions of husband and wife. In November 2012 a group of French psychologists, psychiatrists, child psychiatrists, doctors, philosophers and psychoanalysts from L’Institut de France authored a short article against gay marriage. In early February, there was an enormous march in Paris against gay adoption, championing gendered parenting and sex-based gender roles in the family. Even French gays joined in, with funding and representation from Plus Gay Sans Marriage, a gay activist group in France. French gays agreed! So yes, while children have a much better chance of success in life when they come from a stable family, the conservative definition of family is probably not “two people who love each other.” Furthermore, the jury is still out as to a child’s chances coming from same-sex households. Seriously, if even the French, the politically and morally diverse French, gay and straight alike can march on Paris in the name of heterosexual families, why can’t we as Americans figure this out?

This is the continuation of the liberalization of the Republican Party. They think to win by trying to out-liberal the left. News flash, it won’t work. Every time the Republicans start trying to mimic the left, they end up looking like a cheap knock off. Now, for the shoppers out there, would you buy the cheap knock off when the real deal is always half-priced? Furthermore, conservatives support traditional values for a reason, not just to be tightfisted and mean. Through time immemorial, the degradation of society comes when we turn away from God and morals. There are the oft-cited Greece and Rome, but there are also the ancient kingdoms of Israel and Judah. The Jews stopped doing as God commanded them, rejected their laws, customs and morals in the name of greed, pleasure and power and slid into such a state that ultimately they were conquered, first Israel by Assyria, then Judah by Babylon. Whether by God’s selective hand or just the cause and effect nature of consequences, Israel and Judah fell. We can dispute the divine elements at a different time, but all have a common theme: the normalization and acceptance of deviancy. People ask why morality matters: well, it matters because at the end of the day, if you pursue pleasure to its extremes, you stop doing things necessary for survival and prosperity. Gay marriage, sexual deviancy and drug legalization, are all facets of the push for Republicans to embrace the moral relativism of the left in order to seem electable- a maneuver that will ultimately fail. All it will do is alienate the base and it will not attract liberals away from the Democrats (they have better hash brownies). This is purely for these Republicans’ personal gain. They think selling the rest of us out will keep them in office for the sake of the privileges and power of being in office. Thirty pieces of silver, anyone?

On a political science point, how can you be conservative when you are taking power out of the hands of “we the people” and handing it over to a borderline-oligarchy in Washington DC? California voted, repeatedly, on gay marriage and said no. What does DC really know about California? As a Californian transplanted in DC, I can tell you in my experience it is very little. What happened to states deciding for themselves? Does the Tenth Amendment ring any liberty bells? And on the examples of women’s suffrage and civil rights, those were achieved the hard way, the constitutional way. The Suffragettes went through the process to have the Constitution amended; civil rights leaders went through it and still had to work to get it enforced, on top of the Civil War! That is the right way (though another civil war only as the last resort). Using the Supreme Court as an ipso facto law-making body, instead of its constitutional and traditional role as a law-interpreting body is the wrong way. What they are trying to do is a gross abuse of power and a betrayal of people’s trust. They have the ability and the power to file amicus briefs with the courts, overriding the average citizen that continually votes this stuff down and puts them in office in order to stand against it where the citizen cannot directly.  It is one thing to wave the white flag of surrender for yourself, but it is quite another to wave it in the name of other people without their support and permission.

So, Ms. Wallace, you think you and your merry band of misfits are the true conservatives? “Conservative” comes from the verb “to conserve,” meaning to protect from loss or harm. So please tell me, in supporting the destruction of marriage and embracing moral relativism, just exactly what are you conserving? It isn’t marriage, clearly. It isn’t civilization. It isn’t prosperity. It isn’t the American way.  Are you sure you’re conservative?


11 thoughts on “We the People… Said No

  1. “So please tell me, in supporting the destruction of marriage ”

    So if my friends Pete and Dan get married, that destroys your marriage, does it?

    Your marriage must be very weak and flimsy, then.

      • I am not aware of that, actually. No one has given me a good answer to my question: How does Dan and Pete getting married impact your marriage, or marriage in general?

      • The purpose of marriage has never been solely based on love, which is in fact a rather recent and limited requisite. Marriage was established as an institution historically in order to create economic, social and political ties, secure property and ultimately for the procreation of heirs to inherit the above. Under those circumstances, no one has the right to marry whomever they want, or how many people they want. So, do Dan and Pete in and of themselves, cause a problem in my marriage? No. Does their individual union necessarily cause a problem? Maybe. Does co-opting and changing the definition of an institution that has existed for literally thousands of years on the grounds of nonexistent rights cause a problem? Absolutely.

        Furthermore, up until recently, gays didn’t necessarily want “marriage” but want it now in order to normalize the deviancy that runs rampant in their sector of society. (Do all gays act like heathens? No, but unfortunately a lot of them do and plenty defend those who do.) Winning marriage away from those who aren’t deviant= major step normalizing nonstandard behavior=changing definition to include deviancy.

        The biggest problem I have, which should be apparent if you read the post, is tyranny of a minority. Eighty Republicans have taken it on themselves to speak for the greater majority of people in the US. One percent of society suddenly trying to reshape civilization so they can get away with bad behavior. See the correlation?

        These are articles from the Heritage Foundation, and a book recommendation, if you want to actually understand the opposite side. If you don’t, don’t read them.

  2. ” in order to create economic, social and political ties, secure property and ultimately for the procreation of heirs to inherit the above.”


    If any of that was required to get legally married in the US, you’d have an argument. As it isn’t, you do not.

    ” Does co-opting and changing the definition of an institution that has existed for literally thousands of years on the grounds of nonexistent rights cause a problem? ”

    No. No it doesn’t.

    “Furthermore, up until recently, gays didn’t necessarily want “marriage””

    I’ll tell that to Dan and Pete. I’m sure they’ll cancel their nuptials.

    “Winning marriage away from ”

    Again, we have this…how does Pete and Dan getting married take anything away? Are you unable to get married? Does seeing Pete and Dan getting married make you want to get married to someone of the same gender? I don’t understand.

    You keep claiming that gay marriage will do these things. You have yet to present HOW.

    “One percent of society suddenly trying to reshape civilization so they can get away with bad behavior. ”

    So Pete and Dan just ‘want to get away with bad behavior’? It’s not that they love each other and want they same rights that my wife and I have?

    • Do have anything other than opinion to back your assertions up?

      And as point you can scream legal all you want but there is no right to marry. If there were we would have polygamy and a lot more uncle-daddy’s as a start. That’s nice Dan and Pete love each other or Sally and Sue if you prefer but marriage is all about love…if that were the case there would be no divorce. If that were the case there would also never ever been any limitations on marriage and there always has even prior to this country.

      And in regards to this country, the Constitution and Bill of Rights are a product of civilization. Those two documents didn’t create civilization itself. When you undermine the foundations of civilization you undermine the very documents and rule of law you are fighting for. So while Dave and Pete might get married, and so may Sally and Sue, what other rights are they willing to give up overall in their pursuit? How about the right to exist? Will they give that up? And do they have the right and the authority to sacrifice the right to exist for everyone else?

      You are stuck on…but but but they love each other!

      And the response to that for centuries has been..SO?!

  3. Not a Scientist: Marriage and life in general doesn’t happen in a vacuum. Everything we do whether good and bad effects people in general. If life happened in a vacuum we wouldn’t have rules governing society or even laws.

    Dan and Pete getting married impacts marriage in general because it changes the definition of marriage both legally and psychologically for everyone including those that are already married, and it does so against the will of the majority.

    As the article stated marriage is a ‘cornerstone of Western Civilization’, there is simply no disputing that fact since it has been studied for centuries. The road that Wallace, you and others want to go down is not a new road and we know where it leads. This is always seems to be the pitfall of civilization. When the civilization gets prosperous and successful, morality seems to sink and civilization with it.

    I see gay marriage eventually passing, despite the objections of the bulk of the country, but the result of it is when you win you can also lose. One other issue has been totally and completely irrevocably legislated from the bench and been repulsed by the people ever since….abortion.

  4. Okay, NotAScientist, I need to straighten out something with you: this is not about Dan and Pete, so your attempt to personalize it is you attempting to direct the conversation away from what the post was about. You are attempting to make this a micro discussion when the topic is macro.

    1) Dan and Pete may want a committed relationship, but the gay community as a whole has only recently started beating this drum and many because they want their lifestyle seen as normal. Before you start using your poor friends again, I’d like to point out that I have spoken to gay friends of my own who have openly admitted to this. (Gay marriage supporters and liberal, if you haven’t guessed. They have also defended that being gay means engaging in unsafe sex, taking drugs and having multiple partners, being offensive, etc.)

    2) I am able to get married and no, I don’t suddenly have attractions to my sex. However, I do have rules that I have to meet in order to marry, just as you and your wife did, IE: not related, monogamous, opposite genders, witnessed. We even get licenses that are signed by officials saying we meet the legal requirements, much like our drivers test is administer by an official and the license issued by the DMV. Marriage is not a right, it is a privilege. There are rights WITHIN marriage, but the marriage itself is not.

    3) Once again, this is not about personal motivations, this is about the health of a society on a grander scale than any two people. You say fundamentally altering an institution of civilization won’t change anything. Here’s something to chew on: no fault divorce. What’s the divorce rate now? 60%? What was it a 50 years ago? There are a multitude of studies on how the break up of a marriage affects the children involved, not just the children in the marriage, but the outlook of the generation on it. So, if the impermanence of marriage and break up of families can affect an entire generational outlook, ask what the complete alteration of the definition of it will do.

    • “so your attempt to personalize it is you attempting to direct the conversation away from what the post was about. ”

      Not at all. This is about gay marriage. Dan and Pete are gay and want to be married. This is precisely about them. If your arguments don’t hold up on specifics, it can hardly hold up in generalities.

      “I’d like to point out that I have spoken to gay friends of my own who have openly admitted to this.”

      So, your friends represent the entire gay community?

      “They have also defended that being gay means engaging in unsafe sex, taking drugs and having multiple partners, being offensive, etc.”

      Okay. They’re wrong.

      You can be gay and be wrong. My homosexual friends only think liking people of the same gender is included. They don’t do drugs are have multiple partners are are offensive.

      The thing about anecdotes is that we all have them.

      “I do have rules that I have to meet in order to marry,”


      The whole point is that there is no good reason to include ‘opposite gender’ in that list of rules. And you have yet to present one.

      “What’s the divorce rate now? 60%?”

      Which would be the fault of heterosexuals. And yet, I don’t see you blaming them.

      Allowing gay marriage will increase the number of marriage, not decrease it.

      • Logic dictates also that gay marriage will also increase the divorce rate. We actually have already seen that.

        There is plenty of good reasons to include same sex in that list regardless of the fact you recognize it or not. Sticking one’s fingers in one’s ears and going “la la la la I CAN’T HEAR YOU!!!” doesn’t change the facts.

        As a point of order Spitfire did blame heteros for divorce rate by pointing out ‘no fault’ divorce. Your failure to recognize that doesn’t change it either.

        Under the Constitution and Bill of Rights, namely equal application of the laws portions of those documents, if we allow same sex marriage we have to allow all forms of deviancy. Please study up on equality and what that entails if you are going to press for equality.

        And as to anecdotes, when the stats back your anecdotes up, which they don’t, then they will be taken seriously. The stats involving homosexuals are not good. Since the homosexual lobby forced the American Psychiatric Association to change it’s classification of homosexuality in the 1970’s in regards to mental health not much has been done to study the problems inherent in homosexuality in this country. Abroad however that is not the case. Europe has done in depth studies as well as Canada. One thing this country does do though is keep stats. Drug abuse, suicide, life span, monogamy, STD’s are all stats still kept on everyone including the homosexual community.

      • Broad arguments aren’t your thing are they? The post was not actually about gay marriage on the whole. I reiterated traditional conservative points, in opposition to 80 Republicans trying to present a minority opinion as the majority without our consent.

        My gay friends unfortunately seem to fall in the vast spectrum of negative statistics. I pray for them because they are generally not-bad people, but their behavior is unsafe and I don’t want them to come to harm. As for my friends representing the whole gay community, you have presented yours as the pan-representatives and seem to think that gives you the argumentative high-ground, so mine have been held up as a counterpoint. You just don’t like that suddenly your trump has been removed from play, hence your anecdotes comment, AKA Backpedaling.

        Why shouldn’t same-sex be included in the rules? I’ve already outlined the purposes of marriage, the biggest point being to unite and perpetuate families. Heterosexuals can’t marry their siblings because it is not healthy and does not produce healthy offspring by and large. Heterosexuals cannot marry animals of opposite sexes, or minors or have multiple spouses because it does not produce good for society or civilization. Marriage was created for a reason, whether or not people remember it. If all those other sexual practices don’t hold up, why should gays be the one exception? And as a nod to Lolo’s post, they would not remain the sole exception. Polygamists have already admitted that if gay-marriage is legalized, they will line up to have polygamy legalized and incest won’t be far behind. There are already hot debates over age-of-consent for sexual activity, so why not add in age-of-consent to marry?

        I have a feeling all of that flew over your head. Your argument hasn’t changed in 5 posts, so it is obvious you are not here to learn, understand or discuss. You are just here to disagree.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s