Marriage - recent govt actions threaten the very basis of our claim to the right of self-government

Maryland Independent Party ^ | May 28, 2008 | Steve Schulin

[Steve Schulin]

May 28, 2008

Marriage - recent government actions threaten the very basis of our claim to the right of self-government

I've proposed a platform for Maryland Independent Party. It discusses the defense of marriage as follows: "While we do not acknowledge that our Constitution limits Congress in any way from protecting traditional marriage between one man and one woman, we support passage of a federal marriage Amendment to the U.S. Constitution for the purpose of removing any confusion or misunderstanding in the minds of judges."

Since then, the Supreme Court of California has issued its opinion that a similar defense of traditional marriage, adopted by vote of the people of California, is invalid. Whether or not this opinion is let to stand is a serious matter for many reasons. I'd like to discuss one that you will likely have heard only if you were participating in the Alan Keyes for President conference call last night. One of the things that I've long appreciated about Dr. Keyes is his thorough understanding of the importance of the concept expressed in the Declaration of Independence, that we are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights. In other nations, your rights are determined by the government, or by your fellow citizens. But here in the USA, our founding fathers claimed the right to self-govern because our Natural rights trumped the sovereignty of the King of England. The King did not take kindly to that claim, and it took a hard war before our claim prevailed over the might of the crown. How we react to this California court opinion is a key component in whether we, as Dr. Keyes put it "perpetuate or destroy our institutions of self-government". The court's opinion -- that government officials decide what a family is -- represents a rejection of that central claim of our founders, that there are self-evident truths which government must reflect, and which government may not justly countermand. There is no more self-evident natural institution than the family. The bonds between parents and children are not the product of government decree. If this court opinion is allowed to have the force of law, then we are rejecting the idea that government must respect the self-evident natural rights described in the Declaration.

There's a recording of Dr. Keyes' comments available on the audio archive page at www.alankeyes.com, but the recording is pretty poor. Here's my transcription of approximately seven minutes of the call:

...[T]his decision in California ... in which the Supreme Court in California expressed its view that the action that had been taken by the people of California to show respect for traditional marriage and make it clear that that was the form of marriage in California, that that was somehow unconstitutional ... [garbled]

And as usual, we have seen an ignorance, sadly, from people who profess to be supporters of the traditional family, and opponents of the abuses that take place in our courts. And yet, many of them, oblivious to what was actually written in the decision and what is actually possible ... [garbled] ... are actually acting as if what the Supreme Court of California said has the force of law -- which of course it does not. It was an opinion expressed. And an opinion expressed on a Constitutional question, contrary to the expressed will of the people by Constitutional means, obviously has no more ground than anything that is said by any other individual in this country. Since at the end of the day, though they want us constantly to forget it, it is the people who are the ultimate arbiters of constitutional [garbled], because each constitution, whether its in California or at the national level, speaks for We the People.And when the People, directly, by vote, or amendment, have expressed their voice, [garbled] the court is subordinate to that voice. It does not have rule over that voice. And that is something that now of course is being totally ignored while our system is being transformed.

And its being transformed from a government of, by, and for the people to a government that is essentially based upon the rule of the few. The ew are are favored with judicial appointments, with wealth and power. The ultimate decision as to the fundamental issues of justice and right in our society will no longer be taken by the People.

And I think its also instructive that this abuse of power which overturns the Constitutional system of government comes on an issue that exemplifies the assault on the basic understanding of rights -- the basis of which as a People we claim our natural rights, our right to self-government, our right to liberty.

Many people, sadly, and I would have to tell you, all of the leaders that I see up there, do not understand the serious connection between this whole issue of homosexual marriage so-called and the question of whether or not we shall remain a self-governing people. ... [garbled]

The Declaration of Independence which stated in simple and clear terms the rationale for our system of government, ascribed our claim to self-government to an idea of natural rights, unalienable rights that come from the hand of God.

The paradigm of such natural rights is of course the family. And the relations -- and bonds of mutual obligation and respect and authority and caring, concern -- that characterize the relationship between parents and children, children and parents; a relationship that is respected by the law and in various ways the law has to deal with it and reflect it. The authority that [garbled] that relationship that establishes those obligations is not an authority that arises from human law or decision because the family is an institution grounded in our very nature. It is a natural institution. It is an institution that reflects a kind of belonging that does not rise from the creation of property by the state or the law or decisions of government. No. It is a kind of belonging that arises directly from the way that we are made. And from the bonds and relationships that arise [garbled] of a process of procreation that is inherent in our nature, and that reflects of course the will of God for us. In that sense the family is the paradigm of natural right. And the relationship that arises in a family, the sense of obligation and expectation; the fact that a certain kind of care to children is their due, and a certain kind of respect from children to the authority of parents is their obligation -- those things do not depend on humanly-made laws. They are a reflection of the deep decisions of God that inform and instruct our very biological functions and give rise to the first human community which is the family.

Once we have, however, gone down the road in which we accept the notion that the object of what constitutes marriage and family life can e arbitrarily determined by the decision of judges or even by the decision of legislatures, then by that fact alone we reject the very idea of natural rights that is the foundation of our claim to self-government, and to be a people respected in our right, therefore, to self-government.

That means that issue of homosexual marriage isn't just about individual behavior. It's not even just about how our families will be constituted in some formal and social sense. It is actually about the way in which we understand the universe itself, and whether we accept or reject the concept of God-ordained natural right that is the basis for ourclaim to liberty.

Once we decide that the most self-evident natural institution -- which is what the family is -- is in fact grounded in arbitrary human ... [garbled]

That idea represents the rejection of God, the rejection of natural aurgority, the rejection of natural right, and at the end of the day, the rejection of that which is the very foundation stone of the idea that makes us free.

I'm sad to tell you that you probably won't hear that exposition of this issue from anybody but me. It certainly hasn't been reflected in utter indifference -- of people like John McCain and others -- to the terrible enormity of what the court in California is doing. But it's no accident that -- in both the way in which these decisions are being made, and the substance of the decisions, themselves -- we see, clearly, the image of the end of our system of government of, by, and for the people.

In the fact that the courts arrogate to themselves to overturn that which the people in their sovereign capacity have said and done -- and in the fact that the substance they decide upon -- utterly denies the very concept of natural right, without which we cannot sustain ourclaim to freedom.

In a sense, therefore, this issue of homosexual marriage is the paradigm of the crisis yjay seems now to be upon us, which is the crisis that will determine once and for all whether we perpetuate or desroy our institutions of self-government.

- - - - - END OF EXCERPT FROM ALAN KEYES COMMENTS LAST NIGHT - - - - -

One of the callers asked Alan what we can do to help ensure that we elect candidates to Congress who share his views. Well, I'd like to invite every one who can to help do just that in the June 17 special election in Maryland for the 4th Congressional District seat in U.S. House of Representatives. My name is Steve Schulin, and I am registered as a write-in candidate in this election, which means that votes for me will be counted. If five hundred folks will volunteer to spend election day at the various precincts here, informing voters about this unique opportunity to tell the dominant parties not to take their votes for granted, I can win this election. How about it? This one June election, in an overwhelmingly Democrat district, could easily end up affecting the August conventions, and might even help get Alan Keyes into the national televised debates in the fall. Please email me for details on which precinct to cover, and what you should bring. If you can't come, please consider helping out financially. Contributions can be mailed to Steve Schulin for Congress, PO Box 5652, Rockville MD 20855.

[Steve Schulin]

The incumbant Representative announced, about a month ago, that he was going to move on to the next stage of his life rather than serve out his term. There are several factors that make this a unique opportunity to beat the Democrat in this district.

[Tolerance Sucks Rocks]

Maryland “Freak State” PING!

[Albion Wilde]

Thanks for this ping. This is the heart of the matter here is the U.S. The family is a natural institution. The judicial activists have been trying to overpower this natural strength of society. it can’t be done; but a lot of lives will be harmed or lost until this realization reasserts itself in the majority of our society. Well-meaning people think that allowing “gay marriage” is being “nice.”

Sad.