Time for the counterrevolution: Pat Buchanan decries end run around democracy by homosexuals, judges

WorldNetDaily.com ^ | Wednesday, February 25, 2004 | Pat Buchanan

[.30Carbine]

Read later.

[TheSpottedOwl]

What is happening here in America is an end run around democracy by an elite that believes its superior morality places it above the law. First, the Left engages in defiance and disobedience of a law it detests, then it goes judge-shopping to find some jurist-ideologue who will agree and overturn the law. And thus does the minority rule America.

Thanks for pinging me. If you take out the references to homosexual marriages, this article can apply to many things going on in this country.

[TheSpottedOwl]

Interesting article.

[k omalley]

First thing this morning I am greeted by an editorial in our liberal socialist paper stating that in a poll 80% of the people in our state are opposed to gay marriage. It went on to say , well that's too bad. Its going to happen any way. Why don't you just enjoy it and cash in on it since all these new couples will need services. Yeah, now there's good advice. Trade your values for cash.

[Aquinasfan]

Yet, seeing the smug certitude of Newsom, and the befuddlement of the authorities, there is no doubt who is winning the culture war and who will prevail if Middle America does not find leaders of greater fiber. We live in an age, wrote the poet Yeats, when "the best lack all conviction and the worst are full of passionate intensity."

It's not like God isn't sending us prophets. He sent us Alan Keyes, and we rejected him.

[Aquinasfan]

Congress, writes Quirk, "could re-enact the Defense Of Marriage Act restricting marriage to men and women with one sentence, 'This law is not subject to review by the lower federal courts or the U.S. Supreme Court.' Then the issue would return to the states, where President Bush and the Democratic candidates say it should be."

Absolutely. Let the Courts try to enforce their idiotic pronouncements.

[MamaTexan]

Marriage is the only kind of contract that I am aware of in, which the government must be a third party to.

Quite a few people will NEVER understand this.

License is legally defined as 'governmental permission'.
The equal protection clause means government MUST give it's permission EQUALLY - since sexual orientation was thrown into the mix, government cannot differentiate on that basis. Therefore, marriage licenses must be given to homosexual 'couples' unless a Constitutional amendment is passed.

(Most people don't realize that if it's not in the U.S. or State Constitution, it's not a LAW, since codes, acts, ordinances and statutes are just governmental policy)

[Kerberos]

"Quite a few people will NEVER understand this."

I know, I have posted this fact on many threads and so far you are the fist one to respond who actually understands it.

Not necessarily so, a license can also be a private matter, such as in software licenses. But it is an act of the owner of a property giving another party a right, which the owner is free to determine what the extant of that right is, to another person that does not have a right to said property.

So what the government is saying with marriage licenses is that none of us a right to get married, but most apply to the government for permission to do such. Sounds much like the old USSR to me.

"Most people don't realize that if it's not in the U.S. or State Constitution, it's not a LAW, since codes, acts, ordinances and statutes are just governmental policy)"

But then again most people don't realize that we haven't been governed by the Constitution for years. At best that went out with the new deal.

[codder too]

Can anyone verify that Mayor Gavin Newsom is Ed Asners nephew?

[MamaTexan]

I have posted this fact on many threads and so far you are the fist one to respond

I've posted it as well, but most folks won't listen to what I'm actually saying-they just flame me and call me an anarchist. :(

Federal, State and local governments are described in the statutes as 'political subdivisions', and counties are 'legal subdivisions'.
Both of these are artificial creations constructed by man.

we haven't been governed by the Constitution for years

True, but is a choice of our own making.

Everyone screams bloody murder when:
1. a politician, lawyer or a rich and powerful person gets away with whatever they damn well want too
2. an 'illegal' gets preferential treatment over a 'citizen'

What isn't common knowledge is that our Founders NEVER intended for us to be 'legal entities', only a free and sovereign people.

Our current government, however, has created, within each one of us, a legal entity. (Look at government forms - almost always they say 'legal name')

This entity IS subject to statutory law because it is ARTIFICIAL.

The human part of us just gets drug along for the ride.

Most lawyers and politicians KNOW this,so they just take a plea, get minor slap on the wrist, and go on.
They cannot afford for the people to discover how they have been robbed of their birthrights.

The illegals are still persons under the law simply because they ARE illegal. That's why they are untouchable.

[RogerFGay]

The issue was quickly shaped by extremists and it's going to be a very tough fight to get to all the vital details. I'm glad to see people speaking out about some of the basics, but I'm afraid it's going to shape into a simple extremist battle while the undiscovered solutions will be just that --- undiscovered.

An Alternative to the Federal Marriage Amendment

Why I oppose the federal marriage amendment

[Moby Grape]

It has been sometime since I could offer up "dittos" to Pat, but this is one time he has hit the nail on the head.

[Zack Nguyen]

Should Daschle, Kennedy and Co. deny Bush a vote on his first Supreme Court nominee...

This will only happen if Bush allows it to happen. If he really, really wants his Supreme Court nomination voted on and confirmed, he can make it happen.

[Zack Nguyen]

If there is an issue that I am concerned about in this whole mess it is why do any of us, gay, straight, or whatever, have to seek the governments permission to get married in the first place.

Because people die and get divorced. Legally the government must have the ability to recognize when someone is married and when they are not, how the possessions are to be divied up, enforcement of child visitation and support etc. The government has to enforce these things, thus the government must know who is married and who isn't.

[Revolting cat!]

the smug certitude

Just in case you were wondering what that might mean, there are two posters right on this thread to demonstrate it for you!

[MamaTexan]

Most people don't realize that if it's not in the U.S. or State Constitution, it's not a LAW

This was badly phrased on my part.

What I should have said was that the only 'crimes' that people can commit are ones that involve another person. Ammendments are actually just governmental restrictions.

[Vermont Lt]

The republicans are missing the point again. Stop using Gay Marraige as the point of contention. You will get slaughtered by the media.

Instead, focus on the judges rule by fiat. We should be focused on electing whomever will appoint judges who do not make law, but who determine whether or not the law presented to them is constitutional.

We should point out that mayors, clerks, and individuals are not in a position of authority to decide what is best for everyone.

If these questions are posed to the electroate, we will win hands down. The dem's will be terrified to take on the gay lobby and actually take a stand.

[ZULU]

The Courts and Judges are TOTALLY out of control. He's right here. Unless the Legislatures and Executives, Federal and State, grow some backbone, the Republic is lost.

We might as well eliminate the Constitutions - Federal and State and the Legislators and have the Courts run the Country directly, like little kinglets.

The Gay Marriage issue is only a single symptom. Activist Courts and the incestuous relationship between attorneys in the legislture and executive and the Courts is the REAL disease.

[Kerberos]

"Because people die and get divorced. Legally the government must have the ability to recognize when someone is married and when they are not, how the possessions are to be divied up, enforcement of child visitation and support etc. The government has to enforce these things, thus the government must know who is married and who isn't."

Really, well where I come from it’s known as contract law, and yes marriage is a contract although some people have a problem conceptualizing it as such.. And those contracts can be amended, modified, and or terminated through a court of law, like all our other contracts when there is a dispute. We don't need the government as a party to the contract to get that done.

However your post certainly demonstrates how deeply ingrained socialism is in our society today. People just cannot conceive of how they can do things on there own without the help, or watchful eye of the government, to get it done.

I am not picking on you personally, I see this aspect in our society in lots of places, it’s just that your post was a good example of it.

[Zack Nguyen]

Doesn't government have to be available to enforce a contract if need be? When the courts rule on something, government exists in the debate. Besides, our government must never be allowed to propogate homosexual relationships as normal, moral or healthy. That is exactly what will happen in schools across our country if homosexual marriage is allowed.