FieryDog twitter
FieryDog Rss

Massachusetts and the not-so-gay, Gay Movement

Posted by Brutus | Posted in Conservative Corner | Posted on 09-07-2009

0

Hypocrisy is always an interesting thing to watch when it rears its ugly head and comes back to bite someone–especially if that “someone” is a state.

I warn you now this post will lack the charm of a politically correct monologue. In fact, it will likely tick off people who call themselves conservatives and a host of liberals as well.

Massachusetts is suing the federal government over DOMA (the Defense of Marriage Act), claiming it interferes with the state’s right to define marriage.

Now, I happen to believe DOMA is unconstitutional. Nowhere in the enumerated powers of Congress does there exist the power to define or describe marriage. I oppose DOMA and the Federal Marriage Amendment, even though I am against gay marriage. It doesn’t matter to me what the intended purposes of such legislation are, doing the wrong thing for the right reason is always wrong. The definition of marriage belongs to the several states.

Massachusetts’s sin of hypocrisy is not a blatant one, but one of silence. To find it, we must go back over 50 years to Virginia.

In 1958, Richard Loving maried Delores Jeter in DC then moved to Virginia,  where their marriage was not recognized because Loving was white and Jeter was black. In 1959, the Lovings pleaded guilty to violating interracial marriage laws. They were given a 25-year suspended sentence as long as they promised to leave and not return to Virginia for those two-and-a-half decades.

In 1967, the Supreme Court ruled against the state of Virginia and the convictions were overturned. No longer were the states allowed to decide for themselves what was or was not a proper marriage.

Somewhere, some moron is going to say I support segregation or white supremacy or something equally stupid. So, I interject this now: I do not support these things. I don’t believe government at any level should sanction racism against any group of people–whether it comes in the form of Jim Crowe Laws or Affirmative Action.

The problem is that Massachusetts and 33 other states held their tongues when the Federal Government overstepped its bounds in 1967. I presume they maintained silence because they agreed with the SCOTUS decision regarding Loving. In so doing, however, they surrendered another portion of their sovereignty and rights. It is hypocritical for them now to stand up and face the Beast in DC and complain that their rights have been violated. They had no problem violating the rights of other states.

Rather than enacting marriage laws, perhaps the government should take this moment to look at the greater picture. Federal and state intrusion upon the lives of We, the People, are responsible for Massachusetts’s grievance (and the grievances of many homosexuals). It used to be that marriage was a sacred institution; that it was a religious rite. Ridiculous laws and taxation have altered that to some extent. Institution of a Fair Tax and removal of inheritance taxes, gift taxes, etc. would alleviate many of these issues. Since a Fair Tax neither benefits nor penalizes someone based upon marital status, there are no incentives for government to feel compelled to define marriage one way or another. Moreover, with things such as social security and a 401k, government intervention is the problem. The problem isn’t what defines a marriage, but government greed and malfeasance. Since a person pays into social security from the minute he or she starts working, they should be permitted to bequeath those funds to whomever (or whatever cause) they please. It is, after all, the rightful property of that person. Just because the government stole the money does not give the government the right to keep it, anymore than a bank robber has a right to keep the cash after he gets caught.

If history is any indication of future events, the federal government will get this issue wrong as well. Rather than determining it has no right to rule or legislate on such matters, the government will eventually side with Massachusetts and force gay marriage down the throats of the remainder of the Union.

Spirit of ’76 by Mike Church…coming soon!

Posted by Brutus | Posted in Generic Shopping | Posted on 07-07-2009

0

Mike Church, my favorite radio talk show host on Sirius Patriot has a new movie coming out about the Constitution in September. As with his incredible Road to Independence, this promises to be an extremely engaging and fact-filled documentary. Unlike some so-called “scholars” today, Mr. Church (“King Dude” to his listeners)  doesn’t rely on the tripe tossed down from blanched men in ivory towers. Instead, he goes directly to the original sources, taking his information from the debates, letters, and writings of our Founding Fathers.

Obama, one of those so-called Constitutional scholars, should watch this and learn what America is truly about. Perhaps I will buy and mail him a copy when the movie comes out.

Here is the information taken from Mike Church’s site:

New AntiChrystler products

Posted by Brutus | Posted in Conservative Corner | Posted on 03-07-2009

0

Show your contempt for Barack Obama and his outrageous violations of the Constitution with one of these antiChrystler products.

Twitter links powered by Tweet This v1.8.1, a WordPress plugin for Twitter.