This blog consists mostly of common sense responses to happenings (news articles, political events, etc) that just cry out for someone to say "WHOA! Hang on a second, here!" Too many people get away with just inventing their own facts as they bull-rush their way through an argument.

Unless you're dodging a taxicab or sidestepping a falling gargoyle, it's usually wise to take what time is available to evaluate and apply actual common sense. Good, old wisdom. It is, of course, my opinion, but I'll try to show why I think it's factual.
Thomas Paine said, "To argue with someone who has renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead." ... but I argue with drunks, egomaniacs, anti-gun Statists, Socialist/Keynesians and climate-fraud peddlers, too.

**PLEASE share this around. I didn't research, consider, write and post this junk just to have it hidden.
And feel free to comment.**

CONTACT SophosArchaeus: eMail at sophosarchaeus@hushmail.com
NOTE: this page does not endorse violence, racism or threats, nor permit such abuse in any direction.
Though Americans are fully able to end a fight, that is a last-resort, defense-only option.
If you're here for such crap, get the hell off my page!]

Thursday, August 5, 2010

Whim of Man trumps Rule of Law

[Please note SophosArchaeus' oft-repeated defense of individuals' rights to do pretty much whatever they want, as long as it does not hurt anyone or degrade society. I have wonderful gay friends who are not militant about pointlessly injuring religion for no gain in rights or equality. I am not their daddy. I will defend their right to live as they choose, or debate them about "right and wrong" if they feel they want to]

On August 4th, one activist judge placed their personal desires above that of the Law of the Land and the will of the People. Again.

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”. This means that religion shall not be regulated by the government (including its courts). Government cannot choose our religion, or choose the tenets or policies of the religion we choose, if we decide to choose one. Americans can ignore religion if they choose to.

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” When the already established States created the United States in the Constitution (1787), they gave a portion of their power to it, not the other way around. This means that power or decision not specifically delegated to the federal government was retained for the States or the People themselves to decide. States are supposed to be somewhat different, and people can choose to move to a place where things are done the way they like.

Now marriage is older, by centuries, than the U.S. or its Constitution. It was created by religion centuries before Europeans arrived. Globally, and especially in European churches, marriage was specifically for a man and a woman, for family and reproduction, though homosexuality was tolerated by most societies and a few sects. It was so intrinsic that no one ever had the absurd thought that they needed to “protect” marriage. It was obvious, like gravity [Most Indian tribes also tolerated homosexuality, but their marriage rites were for the creation of families to make babies and continue the tribe]. It is, therefore, the purview of religion and the Constitution makes it clear that government (except perhaps individual States) cannot comment on marriage either way, let alone codify its meaning and application. Certainly, individual activist judges cannot do so over the will of the People. “Marriage” is not even mentioned in the Constitution, let alone enumerated to the federal government.

If a legitimate church, free from all this leftist pressure, were to freely decide to make its own marriage rite open to all, that would be their individual right. While government, in the form of “justices of the peace” (judges), has performed marriages between men and women for centuries, they really never had the authority, beyond certifying civil unions. They were ignored because they were always "normal couples".

You don’t have to be "normal" in America. For years, Homosexuals have had all the legal rights of any other couple. They can live together, assign insurance and benefits, recognize their civil union on paper, etc. But, coincidental with the Progressive Socialist assault on all American and family values, they wanted to co-opt the word “marriage” from the Godly. Their status will not change in the least, but the word is revered by those that really are married, so they wish to degrade it. It’s funny how schoolbooks have already left the above quotes out of discussion of the founding documents, along with “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights”.

So for the third time in recent years, in California alone, the will of the People (in Proposition 8) and the Constitution are disrespected by an activist judge, who just happens to be homosexual himself. It did not help that Governor Schwarzenegger (“Republican” in name only) and Marxist Attorney General Jerry Brown were responsible for defending the repeated votes of the People of California.

Other rulings are pending: the color of robes; replacing “divisive” crosses, stars and crescents with a single, inoffensive sickle; and mandating a “Manual on Spiritual Redistribution” in place of the out-of-date, sectarian Bible, Torah and Quran.

Expect exciting Updates in November and December!

No comments:

Post a Comment

Please be reasonably polite, but especially be as accurate as you can. Provide sources if you have them. We might as well learn something. [Wikipedia and blogs are usually 'pointers', not authoritative sources; they indicate data that might be confirmed elsewhere (that's how I use them here)].