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.
I've read your replies. I gave you an F+...You said the above after I wrote the following:
You flamed out and turned out not to be a worthy opponent. I'm sadly disappointed...
Now I'm leaving so you can claim victory to your friends and continue your crusade...
Unamerican, intellectually dishonest, and fanatical. I leave you to your crusade.
And in all that:To: breakemTake notes.Thanks, but I only take notes from credible sources.
I deal with issues on an issue by issue basis.
Hey, we have something in common. What you seemed to have missed, though, is the issues all have a common theme: homosexuality. And those of us who have dealt with the issues have decided to work smarter and gather all the information we can to make informed, educated and intelligent statements on the issues.
Someone supports a homosexual serving in the military and one of you comes along and posts the agenda and calls the person an apologist, gaystopo member or some such propaganda label.
Perhaps you should stop looking like a duck.
What you never comment on is the health hazards of the homosexual lifestyle. AIDS targets homosexual behavior, tainting the blood supply with a deadly contagious virus. Knowing this, and on this issue alone, why you think homosexuals should serve in the military is baffling.
To: breakemThe problem is you are incapable of dealing with issues separately because you have dedicated yourself to fighting the agenda.You apparently don't see or don't agree with the bigger picture as we see it. That doesn't mean anything other than we disagree. Yet everything we say is supported by numerous sources and everything you say is supported by you and you alone. I prefer many sources stating the same thing over anything you say without a single supporting reference.
We see the bigger picture.
To: breakemYou are slamming an entire group, millions of people, because of an agenda some extremists push. In the US we believe in individual rights and responsibilities. Not excoriating people because someone like them is extreme.Nice try but I'm not slamming anybody. I'm stating facts from sources you don't even attempt to refute. AIDS discriminates against homosexual behavior. That's a fact.
To: breakemLast time I looked, blacks commit an inordinate amount of murder per capita. Now we can yell all day about how violent blacks are or we can treat them as individuals so that the guy down the street can live peacefully and not have to worry about you shouting murderer when he leaves the house.Last time I looked, blacks couldn't stop being blacks while thousands have left the homosexual lifestyle. You're always building then attacking a straw man argument.
To: breakemRESEARCH. You pride yourselves in your links to various studies and research. S says I can’t refute it with evidence.You haven't so far. You haven't even tried.
I mentioned a quote that lj used and the 73% child molester study you guys link to. I have asked questions about each. If you can’t answer questions about the study or the quote then it doesn’t stand up.
We've answered your questions but you either don't like the answers or stop responding.
You’re just using numbers because you can throw them on these threads and superficial people will adopt them. You are being intellectually dishonest.
I don't use numbers. I've researched the issue myself and believe what I post is accurate. You have never refuted anything. I don't know how may times I've said this: Once you've demonstrated something I've posted is incorrect I'll stop posting it.
To: breakemIn order for research to be useful it has to be reliable and valid. Reliability means that the results have been repeated in subsequent trials, preferably by other independent sources. Validity means it was executed with proper formalities, supported by objective truth, and has the power to overcome doubt. The ones I’ve seen so far do not meet either of these standards and your inability to answer simple questions does not invite the questioner to read more studies.The ones [you've] seen? Get specific. Which study?
That wasn't much of a dance - you just walked like a duck.
In order for research to be useful it has to be reliable and valid. Reliability means that the results have been repeated in subsequent trials, preferably by other independent sources.
Considering that huge number of articles quoting many studies - often studies done by homosexual activists themselves - your complaint is unfounded. You just don't agree with the result. Too bad. Tough luck.
Plus there's a difference between sutdying groups of people and what they do, and scientific trials where people, for instance, take certain medicines. You are mixing your scientific concepts here.
Validity means it was executed with proper formalities, supported by objective truth, and has the power to overcome doubt.
Well, nothing can overcome your doubt because you are determined to cling to the idea that homosexuality is benign. But the facts don't agree with your ideas.
The ones I’ve seen so far do not meet either of these standards
In your own mind only, and in the minds of those who are promoting the homosexual agenda.
Yep. I tore your arguments apart. What you don't understand is that by denigrating the facts, by calling us names, playing all your games and never, once, providing any information to support what you say, you are supporting the homosexual agenda. That's what this is all about.
You are being inconsistent. You are saying you don't support the homosexual agenda in one post, and then attack and try to denigrate the facts and those who post them, tell us we're wrong and never provide any information to rebut anything we've said. You don't even talk about the health hazards of the homosexual lifestyle, nor the tainted blood, nor the blood issues in the military - you just ignore the major issues.
See 67. You are inconsistent.
He apparently gets a mental or emotional block and can't put the two together. If he could legitimately rebut what we say I'd stop posting it, but he only responds by trying to denigrate the facts and anybody who posts them.
Immeasurables, such as how he feels about something isn't even a rebuttal, let alone legitimate.
Saying that you "know" homosexuality to be genetic, and to "know" that homosexuals are no more likely to molest children than heterosexuals, is like saying that you "know" the sun to really be flat like a plate because that's how it looks to your eyes.
Your approach to logic is faulty. According to your logic path any course of study that doesn't lead to your prechosen result is incomplete study. That is invalid and circular logic.
In my case one of the examples I use is extremely valid because my cousin's and my own gentic make-up and environments are so similar. We are almost double cousin's. Our mothers are sisters and our fathers are half brothers. We were both raised in good homes on farms about 1/4 mile from each other. We are the same age, both male, went to the same schools, attended the same church and had the same group of friends. The only difference is in the quarter of the family tree we do not share. One of his uncles (that I do not share) who lived over a thousand miles away was homosexual and a concert musician. My cousin is strictly homosexual and a concert musician. I can't carry a tune in a bucket and am strictly hetrosexual.
Our environments were identical yet we are polar opposites sexually. The only difference is in the portion of our genetic material that we do not share. As far as I'm concerned that's a strong indication for a genetic cause.
That's proof enough for me.
As far as the supposed inclination for homosexuals to be child molesters in greater numbers than hetrosexuals is concerned I have never encounterd any homosexuals attempting to molest a child. Although that does provide conclusive evidenece of any kind it also does not seem to support your claims that homosexuals are raving sex maniacs.
That's too bad as it's not even proof enough for homosexual activists. Scientists who are homosexual activists say just the opposite of what you say. Read the links I provided.
I am 53 years old and in my experience the general trend of society during my life time has been toward the acceptance of homosexuality. I see no reason why that trend will not continue in the future. Since the current younger generations are already more accepting of homosexuals than my generation ever was or will be I see no reason to believe that the trend will not intensify in the future.
Secondly, the overwhelming majority of young folks are woefully ill informed no matter the issue. It is high time that this issue is openly debated and all possible ramifications to liberalizing, read redefining, marriage be placed on the table for one and all to ponder upon.
I agree but I don't see how that will reverse the trend toward the inclusion of homosexuals in normal society. In fact I think it will speed their inclusion.
Thirdly, young people, as a rule, don't vote. Whether that is good or bad is up to the individual's to decide but it is none the less true.
Not until they get older; that is why I state that the change will take twenty or thirty years.
At least you were the one making sense.
I'm really trying not to stoop to his level and just stick to the facts. I would hope the lurkers see his tactics for what they are.
Not only were a great number of the Nazi elite, as well as much of the rank and file, homosexuals, but their very philosophy was based on a pseudo-mystical mix of racial superiority, phony Teutonic mythology, ersatz "aryan" brotherhood, with a foundation of homo-erotic Greco-militarism.
Add to that connection the Goebbels-like propaganda methods that homosexual activists are shoving down peoples' throats, and utter intolerance (indeed, edging towards criminalization) of legitimate dissent, and VOILA! Homo-fascism.
Your fears are irrational.
Here 'tis:
The Homosexual Propaganda and Media Manipulation Game...Or for a lot more:
Homosexual Agenda and ManipulationNow I'm gone...
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.