Category Archives: Supreme Court

Volume Two, Chapter Six: Marriage and Statism

I don’t know about you, but I’ve heard all I want to regarding same-sex marriage (SSM). I’m at the point that I truly couldn’t give a damn about it. This has been one of the most lucrative battles in American history. At least one billion dollars has been raised either fighting it or promoting it. And with the issue going before the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) in a few weeks, the matter will seemingly be resolved once and for all, and maybe the economy will FINALLY be a top priority. It really only faces one major hurdle…

In 1996, Democratic President William Jefferson (Bill) Clinton, facing a re-election year, signed the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). It is a federal mandate that defines marriage as a man and a woman. It also prevents same-sex couples from receiving federally sanctioned “rights” (of which some are actually additional taxes) available to heterosexual couples, such as beneficiary claims or income tax reductions. This followed Clinton’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” (DADT) policy regarding sexuality in the military in 1994. He was re-elected widely by moderate voters he aimed to win over with the laws (and still got over 70% of the LGBTetc. vote). By 2004, several states were recognizing “civil unions” for same-sex couples, and Massachusetts became the first state in the Union to recognize same-sex marriage. Many other states soon either passed legislation or voted against it. Clinton’s elected successor, Republican George W. Bush, was facing re-election. His use of DOMA won him over with moderates, just like Clinton, and he was re-elected. On Election Day 2008, Californians voted against same-sex marriage and for the so-called first Black President, Democrat Barack Hussein Obama. Obama repeatedly stated that he felt marriage as a heterosexual construct, but still got the vast majority of the LGBTetc. vote. President Obama would repeal DADT, and cease using DOMA. On May 9th, 2012, the day after North Carolinians voted against SSM, Obama became the first incumbent President to openly endorse SSM… on a state by state basis. This “historic announcement” was deliberately worded to appeal to moderates. On Election Day 2012, not only did Maryland and Washington legalize SSM via a public vote, but Obama won re-election. Ironically, his Republican opponent was… Willard “Mitt” Romney, who signed the Massachusetts SSM law into effect. He vowed to use DOMA if elected, which turned off voters this time around.

Despite the upcoming SCOTUS hearings, the Republican Congress, led by House Speaker John Boehner, continues defending DOMA. Other prominent Republicans signed an amicus brief with the SCOTUS to allow for federal recognition and benefits for same-sex couples, which DOMA prohibits. They feel that DOMA is unconstitutional. It is. As are the bulk of the federal “rights” married couples enjoy.

The U.S. Constitution does not have a single mention of marriage in it, let alone one of federal benefits. And in all cases where something is not mentioned, such as SSM, marijuana legality, or alcohol, the matters are to be decided by the individual states, and NOT the federal government.

At weddings, couples exchange comments and vows. Then, the preacher (or ship captain) will say something like this: “By the power vested in me, by the state of Tennessee, I now pronounce you …whatever. You may kiss the…” And off the couple goes. The preacher does not say, “By the power vested in me by the”: federal government, the President of the United States, or even the U.S. Constitution. The individual states decide their own marriage parameters. Or at least, they used to.

ANY attempt by the federal government to “define” marriage via federal benefits is “social engineering” from stem to stern. It is also “identity politics”, one of the foundations for leftist statism. Thus, ethnic minorities should have Affirmative Action and/or the DREAM Act due to their race; as a woman, Sandra Fluke gets federally subsidized contraception; and both the supporters and opponents of DOMA should get certain stipends… solely because of their relationships. They all want to use the federal government and Supreme Court to subsidize their identities and ideologies. In other words, they’re all statists. Somebody might say, “Well, Douglas, if it wasn’t for federal intervention, slavery would still be intact.” Equating human beings to mere cattle is wrong, especially in a constitutional republic, where all men are entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit (NOT the guarantee, mind you,) of happiness. These are the only “rights” any American citizen is entitled to.

Barack Hussein “The Long-Legged Mack Daddy” Obama could have lost to Clifford the Big Red Dog. But the prize for the leftist Obamaites, and the leftists in disguise Romneyizers, was not that of non-statists: economic recovery. No, the prize for the statists was the power of the federal government to advance their own ideologies. Many vital voters in both parties saw this, and either stayed home or voted libertarian. When ideology wins, pretty much everybody loses. You’d think conservatives would step outside themselves and reflect on what went wrong. Brand loyalty doesn’t work as well for the GOP as it does for Democrats. If they continue to excuse or overlook when any Republican elected representative does something wrong, they should lose Congress. And if they try to win the Presidency by using leftist statism for a third time, the GOP will rightfully get the cowboy hell beat out of them in the next several Presidential elections. The party of “LESS GOVERNMENT!” has proven to be anything but since at least 2004. This is an excellent time for the GOP to strip things down, deal with the basics, take care of business, and to purge the leftists in disguise, the identity politicians, and statists from their party, regardless of the cost. Somebody has to be the adult in the room; state after state has shown that often to be a Republican. Hell, it’s not like they have that much to lose. Or do they?

Recommended additional articles:

Canadian Rattlesnake: Leftists in Disguise

Forbes Magazine: