Posted on 12/27/2003 3:08:49 PM PST by Federalist 78
In Massachusetts, historic cradle of American liberties, the state Supreme Court has become the contemporary incubator of libertines, decreeing that the Legislature, like it or not, must draft a law to legitimize homosexual coupling.
In Washington, DC, just a few weeks before, the U.S. Supreme Court had set the predicate for the Bay State's perversion of marriage when it decreed that states may not criminalize private and consensual adult homosexual acts.
Such radical departure from the norms of society has provoked an overriding majority of Americans to demand a constitutional amendment or something to undo what the people see as unwarranted and dangerous mischief by a willful gang of sanctimonious judges Hell bent to turn the culture upside down and inside out.
The President and most Republicans in Congress, being ardent heterosexuals and astute politicians, have threatened to push for Constitutional change and affirm unequivocally that marriage is exclusively for a man and a woman. That course of action, however, is no snap to accomplish.
Two-thirds of the House and Senate must agree on the proposed amendment before submitting it to the 50 states, 38 of which must approve the change before it becomes the supreme law of the land.
There is a faster way to neutralize the black-robed troublemakers: Articulate and use a quaint concept called "Popular Sovereignty," serially postulated by philosophers Thomas Hobbes, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, and, most importantly, John Locke, and adopted enthusiastically by American colonists.
Popular Sovereignty is the notion, in Thomas Jefferson's words, that the mass of mankind was not born "with saddles on their back, nor a favored few [born] booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately, by the grace of God." (The grace-of-God phrase is a swat at the supreme arrogance of monarchy, a boast still found on British coins [Dei gratia, rex, or, if the ruler is a queen, regina.].)
To the contrary, colonial Americans demanded that any government (whether a republic or a monarchy or any other concoction) must recognize that it may rule only with the authority and at the pleasure of the people.
Even residents of tiny, unsophisticated Pittsfield, Massachusetts, expressed that simple idea powerfully in a resolution they passed in May 1776. "The people are the fountain of power," they proclaimed.
"But precisely because men are not so foolish as to risk being devoured by lions, they will not delegate, and the government therefore will not receive [in Locke's words] an 'absolute arbitrary power,' " wrote Georgetown Professor Walter Berns (Taking The Constitution Seriously, Simon and Schuster, 1987).
"The people will want to put bounds or limits to the powers they hand over." That is, the people will establish a constitution that determines, defines and delineates the specific powers and trust they will extend to the lions.
How would the people know if the trust they had given their rulers had been broken, thus allowing the people to rebel within the framework of a constitution?
Locke's words on that subject were quite readily understood and endorsed by the colonists: When rulers ignore settled law in favor of "inconstant, incertain, unknown, and arbitrary government," then the point of rebellion is reached.
Clearly, when it comes to society's understanding of what constitutes marriage today, settled law is severely being ignored in favor of the uncertain, the unknown and the arbitrary. Even devotees of the homosexual agenda would be hard pressed to disagree with this matter-of-fact assessment.
The people's right to rebel within the framework of the U.S. Constitution is tacitly recognized by every member of Congress, for it is the legislative branch, not the judicial and executive, which directly feels the biennial exercise of Popular Sovereignty (called "elections"). If Congress does not act swiftly and decisively on a major issue, Popular Sovereignty will remove unpopular incumbents and replace them appropriately.
Because of John Locke's influence on the drafting of the U.S. Constitution (although he had died 80 years earlier), Congress is "first among equals."
The document's very drafting sequence indicates this priority, for Article I deals with the legislative branch (Articles II and III, with the executive and judicial branches, respectively).
--While the judiciary cannot control Congress, Congress certainly can control the judiciary. In Article 1, Section 8, Congress has the power to create (thus, the implicit power to eliminate) any federal court beneath the Supreme Court. That power is reiterated in Article 3, Section 1. Congress, it would seem, also may remove lower federal judges who subvert Popular Sovereignty by abolishing the judge's court. The Constitution says a judge may hold office during "good behavior" and that his compensation shall not be diminished during "continuance in office." If there's no office to hold, a judge will be back in private practice or teaching at Harvard Law.
--While the Supreme Court cannot control Congress, Congress certainly can control the Supreme Court by denying it the right to hear certain appeals. (Article III, Section 2: ". . . the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make" [emphasis added].)
If it wishes to expedite and underscore its commitment to Popular Sovereignty and fire a massive shot across the bow of unjust and unjustifiable judges, Congress as soon as possible should convene, draft a bill (not a constitutional amendment), pass it, and submit the legislation at once to the President for what likely would be an immediate signature.
Legislation must contain unmistakable language that 1) marriage and any other permanent, two-person sexual union throughout the United States shall be recognized at all levels of government only if the marriage or union is between a biological, natural-born man and a biological, natural-born woman, and 2) the Supreme Court and, arguably, the entire congressionally constituted judiciary may not review the law.
Meantime, in anticipation of the predictable howls by Laurence Tribe, The New York Times, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Michael Jackson, Rosie O'Donnell, San Francisco's Board of Supervisors, et alia, White House speechwriters should be ready with an appropriate soundbite or two for President Bush's news conference.
Perhaps he could say something like, "How many divisions does the Supreme Court have?" and, "I am referring all questions to my favorite lawyer, John Locke, who is out of town and not expected back anytime soon."
Mike Thompson is author of Preying In School: How Homosexuals Recruit Your Kids, available from Xulon Press, 1-866-909-2665.
More on Preying in School: The world's first referendum on homosexuality was barely 25 years ago, in sunny Miami-Dade County, where in 1977 Florida's official orange-juice saleswoman (and popular country/gospel singer) Anita Bryant led the voters in a thumping repeal of "gay rights" legislation.
At Anita's side as chief political strategist, debater and advertising man was Mike Thompson, a powerful figure in Republican and conservative politics since the mid-1960s.
Now Thompson has packaged a blockbuster and highly readable book on how homosexual activists have opened a new front in their war to demand society's full approval.
"In the midst of a gay-embracing frenzy by bipartisan politicians, the news media, the entertainment world, academia and the other usual suspects," writes Thompson, "there are nevertheless tens of millions of Americans (the familiar Silent Majority) who don't embrace homosexuality. Indeed, they consider homosexuality to be perverse and adverse personal behavior.
"What most of these parents don't realize is that in addition to naïve educators, there are powerful forces inside their children's public schools who skillfully scheme to intimidate heterosexual students into silence or, worse, recruit them into homosexuality itself."
Thompson then lays out factually the strategies and gross propaganda materials employed nationwide by GLSEN, the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network, to penetrate classrooms, amazingly, from kindergarten to college level. (GLSEN also organizes after-school sex clubs [Gay-Straight Alliances] that meet on campus to facilitate "safe dating.")
Quoting extensively from the GLSEN-approved study list of special "children's" literature, the author reveals that much of the group's material, if depicted in a movie, would be considered X-rated, obscene and actually constitute child pornography.
Thompson also cites various medical, scientific and criminal-justice sources to debunk a litany of homosexual claims regarding their lives and alleged danger from heterosexuals.
Particularly compelling is a chapter dealing with the need for full disclosure, in which Thompson masterfully compiles chilling numbers on the longevity of homosexuals and the heavy burden of disease, illness and substance abuse inherent in their choosing "a deathstyle, not a lifestyle."
Thompson's multifaceted solution to driving homosexual propaganda out of public schools is both solid and creative, and boils down to this: Parents must demand that schools fight homosexual behavior just as vigorously as they fight alcohol, drugs, reckless driving and other life-threats to our children.
There is some substance to the assertion that was made. One thing that is supported by a wealth of evidence and studies is that GenX and younger do not view marriage the same way as older generations, nor do they see it as a particularly exclusive or valuable domain in the same sense that Boomers and older do.
If the younger generations do not value marriage as a cultural institution (for which there is strong evidence), then it generally follows that they will not care what happens to that institution. Given the noted libertarian tendencies of those generations with respect to personal matters, they will almost certainly fall on the side of letting anybody who wants "marriage" to have it. Particularly since heterosexual couples of the younger generation do not seem to be particularly interested in marriage themselves.
My report is factual and accurate. Your problem with it is that you don't want any accurate information that challenges your biased claims.
Reading your links will not change my observed facts. I never claimed that all homosexuality was due to a genetic cause but in the case I described I am certain that it is the cause.
The same thing can be said for organizations in schools and on television that promote skiing, swimming, mountain climbing, boating, and auto racing to name a few. People have been injured and died from each of those activities. I'm not supporting GLSEN in the schools but I am showing you the holes in your logic.
You're not listening very well or you're poorly informed. AIDS targets homosexual behavior. That's a fact. AIDS is contagious and deadly and can contaminate the blood supply. When somebody tries to commit suicide we put them on 72 hour watch, so why don't you try to discourage a behavior that results in a deadly contagious disease?
AIDS targets certain sexual activities that is predominately practiced by homosexual males. Anyone who practices those activities has the same risk factors. Lesbians have an extremely low incidence of AIDS.
Not when they try to push it off as some legitimate lifestyle that doesn't harm anybody, because it does. It can affect you and me. It can affect anybody.
As I have shown, many lifestyle effect others, that is not limited to homosexuals.
There is no scientific evidence supporting any homosexual gene. None. You won't find any as it's all been discredited. All the evidence points to environment. Did you read that? The major factor behind homosexuality is environment. That means homosexuals can change. And the fact that thousands have left the homosexual lifestyle supports the environmental factor. Yeah, we should base rights on a behavior, and a behavior that can change. That's nonsense.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1047424/posts?page=71#71
As you can see from this post, in my experience that is not exclusively the case. Causes may vary.
Why do you hate homosexuals so much you don't discourage this behavior that results in a contagious deadly disease?
I do not hate homosexuals. I can discourage someone without creating a law or Constitutional Amendment to do so. One of my friends was killed in a hunting accident, I do not support a law banning firearms because he was killed.
Don't people realize that the Constitution is a document which limits government, not people?
Yet there isn't any evidence to support homosexuality is genetic. It's all been discredited and even homosexual activists have admitted by their own research the major cause behind homosexuality is environment.
I keep this around because I have to repeat it so often:
There have been quite a few studies on genetics and homosexuality. All of them have demonstrated there is no gay gene, have been discredited, or the text of the article were shown to be completely unrelated to the title of the article. The pro-homosexual bias can be very obvious at times.
Simon Levay has often been touted as having found the gay gene, yet he found no such evidence:
Simon LeVay, in his study of the hypothalamic differences between the brains of homosexual and heterosexual men, offered the following criticisms of his own research:All the evidence in support of genetics and homosexuality can be similarly summarized. In regards to the APAs decision to delete homosexuality from the diagnostic manual of the American Psychiatric Association, Simon Levay further stated:"It's important to stress what I didn't find. I did not prove that homosexuality is genetic, or find a genetic cause for being gay. I didn't show that gay men are born that way, the most common mistake people make in interpreting my work. Nor did I locate a gay center in the brain.
"Gay activism was clearly the force that propelled the APA to declassify homosexuality."
I quote Simon Levay because his work is often used to support something it never supported. Levay is a gay advocate.
What the evidence does support is the major factor in determining homosexuality is environment. The fact that thousands have left the homosexual lifestyle further supports the scientific studies.
The following is pulled from here:
...The following is just one of the many developmental pathways that can lead to homosexuality, but a common one. In reality, every person's "road" to sexual expression is individual, however many common lengths it may share with those of others.There are 11 additional references at the above link which I encourage everyone to read, as it's my opinion the above summarizes the homosexual factors quite well. At this time there are no scientific arguments against the above. Unfortunately we're labeled all kinds of things if we don't just tolerate homosexual behavior, but we're supposed to accept it as valid.(1) Our scenario starts with birth. The boy (for example) who one day may go on to struggle with homosexuality is born with certain features that are somewhat more common among homosexuals than in the population at large. Some of these traits might be inherited (genetic), while others might have been caused by the "intrauterine environment" (hormones). What this means is that a youngster without these traits will be somewhat less likely to become homosexual later than someone with them.
What are these traits? If we could identify them precisely, many of them would turn out to be gifts rather than "problems," for example a "sensitive" disposition, a strong creative drive, a keen aesthetic sense. Some of these, such as greater sensitivity, could be related to - or even the same as - physiological traits that also cause trouble, such as a greater-than-average anxiety response to any given stimulus.
No one knows with certainty just what these heritable characteristics are; at present we only have hints. Were we free to study homosexuality properly (uninfluenced by political agendas) we would certainly soon clarify these factors - just as we are doing in less contentious areas. In any case, there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that the behavior "homosexuality" is itself directly inherited.
And that's ridiculous. Stop and think about it. Not just tolerate, but accept a behavior that results in severe health hazards. A behavior that can, and should be, changed. The madness must stop. The truth must be told.
You're not really looking. Also, I often check the links and am aware of none that do not work. As far as biases, feel free to check out the references, data sources and footnotes from the organizations you think are biased. Find credible sources that discredits the information presented. You may claim bias all you want, but nobody can discredit, rebut or disprove the information presented.
When it comes to quoting sources on the homosexual agenda, note the quotes are from homosexual activists Kirk and Madsen from their book After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the 1990s of which I have a copy. Run a search on Kirk and Madsen.
When it comes to quoting the stats on health hazards, note many of the references are from the CDC (Center for Disease Control). Now there's an obviously biased-against-homosexuality organization. Feel free to find studies that discredit what the CDC says.
Note many of the links cite homosexual activists. If you want to talk about bias... yet they support what I've said here.
You're not showing me holes in anything. Do any of the above lifestyle choices want rights based on their behavior? Are any of the above lifestyle choices rife with a deadly contagious virus that can affect everybody?
AIDS targets certain sexual activities that is predominately practiced by homosexual males. Anyone who practices those activities has the same risk factors. Lesbians have an extremely low incidence of AIDS.
Yet homosexuals are 2% of the population including bisexuals, and homosexual behavior is spreading AIDS and syphilis faster than any other lifestyle choice. Lesbians have their own health issues.
As I have shown, many lifestyle effect others, that is not limited to homosexuals.
None spread a deadly contagious disease through a behavior that is encouraged, and encouraged in our schools and in our television programs. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1047424/posts?page=71#71 As you can see from this post, in my experience that is not exclusively the case. Causes may vary.
Yet you can't find or cite a single study that supports your own thoughts on the matter. You can believe what you want while science screams just the opposite, and always has.
I do not hate homosexuals. I can discourage someone without creating a law or Constitutional Amendment to do so. One of my friends was killed in a hunting accident, I do not support a law banning firearms because he was killed.
I'm glad to hear you don't hate homosexuals, neither do I and I'm sorry to hear about your friend.
I'm well read on the subject of homosexuality and I don't like constitutional ammendments, yet I cannot condone their behavior, their health stats nor their agenda. It's nonsense to base rights on behavior, and behavior that can change.
Too many presume that "the balance of power" statements by teachers and in textbooks "covers that issue."
When did the Constitution become about people? The Constitution is not about people, it is about government.
The overriding majority of Americans would be better served by restricting their demands to the "or something" and leave the Constitution alone.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.