Replies

"A Constitutional amendment protecting marriage - keeping the same meaning it has had throughout the history of this country - is not imposing moral biases."

It most certainly would be an imposition of a moral bias or belief on others. It would also be a further extension of federal powers. I am against that sort of amendment on more levels than I have time to go into.

We just aren't going to agree on this and I'm tired of arguing. It's past my bed time.

I will say this though. The slippery slope that scares me more than anything is the direction faux conservatives are leading us in. Be very careful when considering any further amendments to our Constitution. Think long and hard before getting behind any further limitations on freedom in this country and any further expansion of the powers of our ever expanding federal government. Like my daddy used to say, "be careful what you wish for 'cause you just might get it."

I realize that you could say the same to me, but the way I look at it is that I always try to err on the side of freedom unless the rights of others are substantially affected. I'd rather freedom be our undoing than anything else. People should be free to do whatever they want as long as they don't cause significant unjustifiable harm to others or create a substantial risk of causing significant and unjustifiable harm to others.

I hope you had a good night's sleep! Maybe we aren't inthat much disagreement. I am not in wholesale favor of tweaking the Constitution any more than you are. But the meaning of the Constitution is being, for want of a more polite word, raped - and has been for two generations. Society is becoming a "everything that isn't forbidden is mandatory" type centrally managed overlordship, with states and counties fiefdoms for the select.

Add to that the forced "acceptance" and mandated "tolerance" of every single sexual deviancy the mind of man can think up, and the rejection of every ghostly vestige of religion, and totalitarianism of an unbenign type is upon our heads, with most of the population asleep in front of their cable TVs.

Imagine a nation in which there is a sharp cultural divide in the population. One group believes in the traditional, time-tested moral values which built the nation. The other group believes in a sexually libertine, secularist, egalitarian society.

But the two sides are not equally large. The traditional group is about 60-65% of the population, while the libertine group is 35-40%. So the libertines are rarely able to enact their agenda through the normal legislative process, for the simple reason that they are outvoted and lose most elections, and they lose virtually all referenda.

But the libertines make a discovery. While they are only 35-40% of the population, they are upwards of 80% of the people making up the judiciary, the media, and the academic world. So they come up with a plan. Unable to enact their agenda through the constitutionally prescribed manner, they devise a strategy of using the judiciary to impose their beliefs and practices on society. They file lawsuits, claiming that existing constitutional provisions "mandate" that their agenda be enacted into law. With a wink and a nod at friendly, well-positioned, lifetime tenured judges, they ask them to "interpret" constitutional provisions ratified decades, or even centuries, ago as mandating legal abortion, legally recognized gay marriage, prohibitions on Nativity scenes in the town square, and many other agenda items.

Now, those constitutional provisions were never in anyone's wildest dreams intended to do such things, and they would have been soundly defeated if anyone had thought they would lead to such things. But, the libertines' allies in the media and academic community immediately go to work, propagandizing that these radical court rulings are "the law of the land", droning on and on about how "the constitution is whatever the judges say it is", and how we need a "living constitution" which "changes with the times".

So the libertines get away with what is, in effect, a coup against the constitution and the citizens of the United States. Conservatives scramble to try to muster the votes to amend the constitution to, let's say, ban gay marriage. But getting the super majorities to amend the constitution is difficult. The libertines usually have enough support to block such amendments from getting two-thirds in one house of congress, for example.

Of course, the libertines don't have to worry about gathering super majorities for amending the constitution. They accomplish their goals be having friendly judges "interpret" amendments ratified many years ago as requiring their agenda to be implemented. In other words, they aren't playing by the rules, but expect us to do just that. In fact, they even ridicule us as "extremists" for trying to amend the constitution by the prescribed method.

Meanwhile, as we're struggling to win enough elections to get a super majority for a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, the libertines are busy working on legal briefs to prod the Margaret Marshalls and Anthony Kennedys of the world to "interpret" some 19th century vaguely worded constitutional passage as legalizing polygamy, or mandating food stamps for illegal aliens, or banning public speeches against homosexuality as "hate speeches" which threaten "diversity".

That's exactly the situation we're in right now.

There are only three options:

1) Simply raise the white flag, bow to the courts as our dictators, and promise to obey all their edicts from now to eternity, effectively admitting we no longer live in a constitutional republic governed by the rule of law.

2) Amend the constitution to overturn the rulings, which is difficult and forces us to play by the very rules our opponents ignore. Can you imagine "liberals" trying to amend the constitution to mandate gay marriage? Why do that when it's much simpler to get a friendly, ideologically-driven leftist judge to "interpret" some ancient law as mandating it?

3) Start ignoring these illegal, abusive, and unconstitutional judicial fiats. One man alone can't do this. It needs to be a mass effort in which we, as a large segment of the population, simply assert our independence of our judicial lords and masters and refuse to obey them.