Posted on 07/13/2010 8:44:09 PM PDT by AtlasStalled
Although the likes of Keith Olbermann and Janeane Garofalo smugly attempt to marginalize the Tea Party movement by falsely stating that it is populated by anachronistic racists, homophobes and rednecks, the fact is that many actually are supportive of the recent U.S. District Court decision out of Massachusetts which struck down the federal ban on gay marriage as reported by The Washington Post:
[M]any said they back the decision because it emphasizes the legal philosophy of states' rights. * * * "I do think it's a state's right," said Phillip Dennis, Texas state coordinator for the Tea Party Patriots. * * * Everett Wilkinson, state director for the Florida Tea Party Patriots, agreed: "On the issue [of gay marriage] itself, we have no stance, but any time a state's rights or powers are encouraged over the federal government, it is a good thing." * * * Wilkinson said "several hundred" of the group's supporters are gay.
Indeed, perhaps expressly thinking of those ignorant fools Olbermann and Garofalo, Burns Strider wrote over at The Huffington Post that the Democrats have wrongly concluded that the Tea Party "folks must all be racist, conservative, backward crazies":
Polling has also showed that the majority of Tea Party activists do not think government should support any set of moral values or define marriage. And a sizable majority of Tea Party activists are pro-choice. Think about that. Most Tea Party members hold positions that, in our completely un-nuanced political speak, make them "pro-gay and pro-choice."
It's a shame that Olbermann and Garofalo never listened to Bob Dylan because as he sang in "The Times They Are A-Changin": "Don't criticize what you can't understand."
(Excerpt) Read more at beforeitsnews.com ...
Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!
Actually equal protection. you cannot take half my money and give to someone else. The government must treat us all the same
I don’t pay taxes and get nothing and those paying nothing get everything.
The entire progressive tax structure is about to go.
The vast majority of Tea Party members do not support gay marriage. However the Tea Party does support states rights. I personally believe that marriage is of such a basic design that it should be written into the constitution and I have no doubt that had the founders been witness to the assault on commonsense and common decency that many things would’ve been better defined such as obscenity. They never dreamed that the first Amendment would be twisted to twist the most vile forms of prurient sexual display and behavior. I personally wish they had defined obscenity as anything involving sexuality that exceeds the boundaries of monogamous heterosexual sex. It is a simple definition that would have left a solid legal foundation on which to stop sexual liberalism in all its variant forms before its birth and the world would be much better for it.
The problem comes when gay activists use the full faith and credit clause to export gay marriage from one state to another. That negates the power of a state to ban gay marriage on its own.
So let me see if I have this straight. THIS court decision says a state has a right to make its own laws. But Racist AG Holder says the state of Arizona DOESN’T have the right to make ITS own laws. Got it.
Just one little fly in the ointment for THIS decision. Didn’t the Supreme Court rule over 100 years ago that, at least for Utah, a state CAN’T make its own laws regarding marriage?
Whatever happened to STARE DECISIS?
“Many” reporters will convert meaningless anecdotes into misleading headlines.
Does this mean gays get to pay the marriage penalty now?
Exactly. Anyone with any common sense knows that the founders espoused common decency. Sodomy was a capital crime when this nation was founded. Remained so until the last 50 years or so. They would’ve never stood for the despicable nonsense that passes for normal these days, and never in their wildest imagination would they have thought that it would have to be spelled out in the constitution. Anyone with basic knowledge of early American history knows that liberty and freedom was never intended to be a trophy for perversion and degeneracy.
I normally believe in states rights, but did anyone consider what happens when the ‘married’ gays come into the states that don’t allow it, and start filing lawsuits, state and federal to be recognized as married?
That’s what makes this different, is that people’s goals are to force the states via the courts to overturn states’ laws on marriage if they don’t recognize gay marriage. And they will do it thru both state and federal courts.
So the federal government will be involved no matter what. They will get dragged in to referee because the gays will drag them in to referee. It’s part of the strategy. The government could be anyway because of the commerce clause as people frequently travel across state lines and get married.
I believe this is a case that is both a states rights issue and a federal issue. The states have a right to decide if they will recognize gay marriage, but it’s also a federal issue because they will ultimately have to decide via courts or laws issues between states that recognize it and those that don’t. There are too many other legal issues that arise from marriage (survivorship, property, custody issues, etc) that gays will force them into the debate. And right now it’s much better to have DOMA in place because with DOMA in place and the federal government NOT recognizing gay marriage, it is de facto leaving it up to the states. DOMA doesn’t say the states can’t legalize gay marriage, just says the fed govt won’t recognize it. And that is great for all of the people who say “leave it up to the states”. DOMA effectively does this right now. So it doesn’t need to go away. If it goes away, and that is taken as a sign to allow the federal government to recognize gay marriage, ultimately all the states opposed to it will have to accept gay marriage - if the federal government recognizes it, the courts will rule the smaller states will have to, too. Because federal law applies all across the 50 states.
So don’t be fooled about getting rid of DOMA, DOMA actually keeps the choice to recognize gay marriage a states issue, because with DOMA, by the federal govt saying “no we won’t recognize it” that still permits states to recognize it if they want to. It also permits states not to. But if the feds would recognize it, and all states are under federal law, then that would take away a states’ right to oppose it.
I hope you can see this and hope you will not be in favor of DOMA going away, it’s the major law that allows states to determine whether or not they will recognize gay marriage. If DOMA falls, and worse, if the federal government says is will recognize it, the courts will rule that federal law being uniform across all states, those states with laws opposed, are now null and void. If they strike it down but say nothing, it will go through the courts and the courts will decide if the federal government recognizes gay marriage or not. One way or another it will be a disaster for states rights on this issue if DOMA goes down.
In short, the federal government not recognizing gay marriage is the best position. That leaves the doors open for states to recognize it, or not. If the government takes a neutral or pro stance on gay marriage there will be no choice for those that oppose it, federal law will trump state laws. A neutral position will lead to federal court cases where the SCOTUS will decide, and probably will support gay marriage. A pro gay marriage law will strip states of their right to oppose it.
I believe they will try this angle and many will fall for it. But the fact is even with that, currently states don’t have to recognize a lot of legal things in other states. One being concealed carry licenses. One state allows it, and it’s legal, the other doesn’t recognize it at all. This is a 2nd Amendment issue and full faith and credit doesn’t apply here. So there is precedent that that argument may not work in every court. If they pick a liberal court however it will.
Ah, but you see, those of either left or right, who wish to use the power of the federal government to advance their own social agenda, will hitch their issues onto whatever train happens to have momentum at that time.
I find it dismaying that so many conservatives are willing to throw away their freedom (and mine), and increase the power of the federal government over their own lives (and mine), simply because in one instance it happens to be a position they agree with. It is a very short-sighted attitude, and one that bites more often than it supports.
If the Tea Party branches out into social issues, it will become irrelevant and die. Guaranteed.
The TEA Party is a mix of Conservatives, Independents, and Democrates who have come together to fight the massive government bureaucracy that has has taken a strangle hold on the throats of we Americans!
Maybe. Bit I don’t know any tea party folks who support homosexual marriage. We should not have to try to be PC just to avoid attacks from the media. Those attacks will come in any case. Most Americans believe marriage is between a man and a woman. Only a tiny minority of leftist extremists and virtually all journalists believe otherwise.
If they had known that the country they founded would descend into degeneracy would they have considered it worth the effort and risk to do so?
If that's true then explain why every state that held referendum on the perverted marriage issue rejected it. All 31 out of 31 states told the perverts NO. Even the blue liberal states.
What you claim is BS, The federal government shouldn't have power over the states regardless of the issue. <~~~notice the period
Over here... Check out this BS
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.