Well, it’s nice to know I have readers. It’s even nicer to know that I have Leftist Flavor-Aid Drinkers who take the time and effort to read and even respond to my posts. Someone’s actually reading my stuff. That’s pretty cool.

One of my readers (though I suspect he won’t be a repeat offender) calls himself “Darren.” “Darren” is a flaming Liberal, and could, theoretically be gay, based on his response to my commentary about President Obama's Moral Cowardice.

You can tell “Darren’s” political and possibly sexual leanings by the title of his comment: “Homophobia isn’t Christian” and in the interests of fairness, I will respond to “Darren’s” points in order.

Darren: “Homophobia isn’t Christian”

Jake: Saint Paul, you know, one of the prototype Christians, had this to say about homosexuality in his letter to the Romans (Rom 1: 20-28):

Although they knew God they did not accord him glory as God or give him thanks. Instead, they became vain in their reasoning, and their senseless minds were darkened.   While claiming to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for the likeness of an image of mortal man or of birds or of four-legged animals or of snakes. Therefore, God handed them over to impurity through the lusts of their hearts for the mutual degradation of their bodies. They exchanged the truth of God for a lie and revered and worshiped the creature rather than the creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.  

Therefore, God handed them over to degrading passions. Their females exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the males likewise gave up natural relations with females and burned with lust for one another. Males did shameful things with males and thus received in their own persons the due penalty for their perversity. And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God handed them over to their undiscerning mind to do what is improper.

Furthermore, Saint Paul (by the way, the word “Saint” means he’s acknowledged as being in heaven already) has this to say in his first letter to the Corinthians (1Cor 6:9-10):

Do you not know that the unjust will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators nor idolaters nor adulterers nor boy prostitutes nor sodomites nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God.

He also says in his letter to Timothy (1Tim: 8-10):

We know that the law is good, provided that one uses it as law, with the understanding that law is meant not for a righteous person but for the lawless and unruly, the godless and sinful, the unholy and profane, those who kill their fathers or mothers, murderers, the unchaste, practicing homosexuals, kidnapers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is opposed to sound teaching, according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, with which I have been entrusted.

Considering that calling homosexuality a “Perversity” and lumping homosexuals with thieves, adulterers, fornicators, robbers, murderers, kidnapers, liars, and perjurers, and saying that they are “opposed to sound teaching” is usually lumped into “homophobia,” I’d say that the Bible doesn’t exactly support the view that opposition to homosexuality is wrong. Strike 1.

Darren: “You gave absolutely no reason why God's call to Gene Robinson to be a minister should be thrown away…”

Jake: If you had read the articles On the Edge of Schism, Tolerance, Truth, Christianity, and Gays, and Lutherans Waffle on Gay Clergy, you would know precisely why I think that, but since you didn’t here’s the short version: Given St. Paul’s comments in three separate letters to three separate communities, as well as every other instance of homosexual sex being called “wicked” in both the Old and New Testaments, it is reasonable to presume that active homosexuality is prohibited by the Bible. Therefore, correct Christian teaching (that is, Christian teaching that follows the Bible) must include that homosexual behavior is wrong. A clergyman who is an open, active homosexual will necessarily, by his words and/or his deeds, tell his congregation that homosexuality is morally acceptable behavior. Bishop Robinson, in particular, has specifically stated that homosexuality is OK and has pushed for same-sex “marriage.” He is teaching a doctrine that is precisely counter to true Christian teaching. Someone who abuses children, has rampant, straight sexual liaisons, commits serious crimes, or preaches incorrect doctrine is also unqualified to be a clergyman.  Strike 2

For what it’s worth, someone who is openly gay, but also openly admissive of the wrongness of homosexual acts, and makes a concerted effort to be chaste, would make a good clergyman.   His example of strength in the face of heavy temptation would serve as a good example to his congregation.

Darren: “…are dead wrong in saying there's something "moral" about homophobia and bigotry…”

Jake: See above for opposition to homosexuality. I do not at any time say that bigotry, that is active discrimination directed at someone for any reason but qualifications, is OK. Opposing homosexual behavior is not, in and of itself, bigotry.  Strike 3

Darren: “…refer to simple equality as gay ‘privledges’ (sic) which is hogwash, NOBODY is asking for anything but simple equality.”

Jake: I do not refer to simple equality as “gay privileges.” I refer to the privileges the gay activist community demands of the rest of us as “gay privileges.” Gays already have all the same rights that normal people do. They can be married (though they usually choose not to, precisely because of their sexual proclivities), serve in the armed forces (so long as they, like the rest of us, put “service before self”), have just about any job for which they qualify, live anywhere they want to, and enjoy the same protections of the law that the rest of us do. Not only that, but they can live out their peculiar sexual tendencies generally unmolested by the law, anymore.

The privileges I speak of include the privilege to legally change the definition of marriage to suit the afore mentioned peculiar tendencies. See When the Constitution is Unconstitutional for more details on that. They also include the privilege of quashing dissent. They call anti-homosexual-acts speech in churches “political” and demand that the Government take away conservative churches’ tax exemptions. They enact “hate speech” codes in colleges that are only enforced for Christians preaching against homosexuality and never against gays spouting off against Christianity. They seek affirmative action privileges akin to those already enjoyed by blacks. They think “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” doesn’t go far enough because it doesn’t allow military gays to be gay first and soldiers second. They want what the rest of us don’t get: special legal recognition of their personal preferences. So, yes, they are asking for special privileges, and a lot more than just redefining marriage.  Strike 4

Darren: “You're wrong about Freedom of Choice”

Jake: I presume you mean the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA). Since you didn’t bother to say how I was wrong, let me explain why I’m right.

First off, FOCA is intended (and no one disputes this) to invalidate all state restrictions on abortion. Period. Since that’s what I said it does, I’m right.

Article 3, section 2 of the Constitution of the United States reads as follows:

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;

--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;

--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;

--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;

--to Controversies between two or more States;

-- between a State and Citizens of another State [author’s note: this clause was nullified by the 11^th Amendment];

--between Citizens of different States;

--between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

[Author’s note: I arranged the section into a bulleted list for ease of reading, otherwise the text was copied directly from the National Archives website.]

The Constitution does not provide the Federal Bench the power to rule on state laws unless those laws directly violate the Constitution. A review of the entire Constitution shows that the document is silent on abortion, reproductive health, healthcare in general, or even “privacy.” So when I state that Roe v. Wade was an unconstitutional ruling, I was right.

Article 1, Section 8 reads:

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the [Construction] of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;--And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

This section lists all the powers of the Congress. It does note that Congress can be assigned more powers by the Constitution, and most of the Amendments include “Congress shall have the power to enforce this amendment by appropriate legislation.” As I stated before, the Constitution is totally silent on abortion, meaning that Congress can neither allow nor restrict it without an amendment to the Constitution. So when I state that Congress can’t regulate abortion, I’m right.

The 10^th Amendment reads as follows:

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.

This says that any power that the Constitution doesn’t expressly give to the Federal Government or expressly deny to the States belongs to the States or to the people (if the states choose not to act on that power.) So when I say that abortion must be a state matter, not a federal one, I’m right. 

Combining all of that, when I say that FOCA violates the Constitution, I’m also right. Strike 5

Darren: “…and hysterically wrong about the media, but that hilarious joke of a myth has been entertaining us for decades now. Even Pat Buchanan had the honesty to say it's bogus, but so many still spout "liberal media! liberal media!" and it's such baloney, but at least entertaining baloney.”

Jake: I’m glad you’re entertained. Please provide a link to the document in which Pat Buchanan said that the media is totally unbiased. To deny the existence of a liberal wing of the media is to deny that the sky is blue. Reporters, editors, and publishers in the Mainstream Press vote democrat on a near 9-1 ratio as those who vote republican. No One can consistently write stories without some sort of personal bias.   A great many Townhall and other columnists provide ample documentation to support a general leftward bias in the media. Just because you think the media’s right 100% of the time doesn’t mean they’re unbiased. Just one example of the liberal bias was the “Memogate” story. You know, the one where “respected” anchor man Dan Rather ran a story on 60 Minutes about President Bush’s alleged problems in his national guard service and based the entire story around a memo that was immediately debunked as fraudulent. Everyone in the 60 Minutes crew, from the producer, to the researchers, to Rather, himself were so willing to believe anything bad about President Bush that they ran the story without bothering to check the facts.  Strike 6

Darren: “Unlike the homophobia, which truly does destroy lives and causes massive amounts of suffering while never in human history has it ever made a single person better off, this one's fairly harmless.”

Jake: I suppose “this one” means FOCA. Really. Opposing the redefinition of marriage or the ordination of clergy who do not believe what a particular church teaches destroys lives and causes “massive amounts of suffering”? Prove it. Then explain to me how much suffering gays cause themselves. What’s the expected lifespan of a gay man as compared with a straight. How many get themselves infected with AIDS, spread it to other gay men, and claim with a straight face that it wasn’t their fault? What’s the incidence of drug use among gay men? What percentage of pedophiles are gay? [Author’s note: It is in no way accurate to presume that being gay automatically makes you a pedophile any more than it is to presume that being a Muslim makes you a terrorist.] 

I missed this when it first appeared, but a friend of mine brought it to my attention earlier today. Apparently Obamania is an international phenomenon. Now, when I say Obamania (as I did in an earlier piece) I don’t simply mean that people like him, or his celebrity-without-substance status, or even the fact that the media in this country and elsewhere fawn all over him, because they do that with any leftist today.

No, Obamania is the pathological belief that Barack Obama – a 47-year-old ½ term Senator who won his seat after his opponent backed out in disgrace and has never held a position of serious authority in his life before being elected President of the United States – is some form of christ (or messiah, or savior, or chosen one, prophet, etc.). (The lower case letters were intentional.) In a particularly egregious example, a week after the election, Nigerian Theatre Arts Professor Dr. Matthew Umukoro wrote a piece for the Nigerian edition of the Guardian newspaper entitled, and I quote, “And the Word was Made Flesh.” In the article, which I read briefly, Umukoro indicates that the “word” was that of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. enfleshed by the election of a man of African descent to the office of the President of the United States. THAT is the sort of thing I mean by Obamania. Obama, himself, despite all his weaknesses, does not, so far as I am aware, have a God complex. At least not yet. But the Obamaniacs have deluded themselves into thinking that he is God-like, or Christ-like (big “C”) in any case (Author’s note: I do not distinguish God from Christ, but many Leftists, especially those who do not understand first-grade-level Christian theology, do make that distinction).

Obamania is dangerous. Not in the fact that Barack Obama was elected President, mind you. That is not my preferred set of circumstances, but it is not unimaginably bad. The danger in Obamania is that those who worship heroes usually believe their heroes can do no wrong. Worse, since Obamania involves the near deification of that hero, not only can he do no wrong, but disagreement with him is to be stamped out.

Obamania has yet to abate. The fawning over our new President continues in the media as though it is still new. Even in the conservative media we get the stories about how this might be a blessing in disguise. Barack Obama did his job in the campaign, he’s gotten everybody hooked. On my way home last night I turned on the radio to hear the hosts of the show I was listening to interviewing celebrities about their take on the “historic events” of Tuesday. I was listening to a sports talk radio station. A sports talk radio station. A SPORTS TALK RADIO STATION. I was trying to hear about Virginia Tech beating Wake Forrest. Or about any news from the Super Bowl in Tampa next weekend. Or about how the Washington Capitals are playing better than they ever have. Or about how the Washington Wizards are playing precisely like they always do – badly. If I want Obamania, I’ll listen to NPR. I didn’t want Obamania, I wanted sports talk.

Look, I get it. I get that he’s black. I get that he’s the first black President (Bill Clinton’s claim to that honor notwithstanding) we’ve ever had. I get that he’s popular like a celebrity. But Tuesday was no more historic than any January 20^th in any leap-year-plus-one. The history was made on Election day. Yes, the man has a right to celebrate, and no, I don’t begrudge the million or so people who descended on DC. I didn’t appreciate my route to work being closed, but that’s the price of doing business here. But people in the media need to be told (because they don’t get it) that there are a great many people who are not celebrating. And many of those people would like to turn on a sports radio station for the sole and expressed purpose of not hearing more Obamania.

Speaking of black Presidents…

Does anyone wonder why Barack Obama in 2008 was the first black man elected President? Any ideas? How about this one: because Joe Biden was actually right. Barack Obama is a clean-cut, eloquent, generally inoffensive man who has no real record of race-baiting politics or obvious corruption, qualities that are, unfortunately, rare among black politicians. Particularly black Democrats. When you consider that the most well-known black Democrats end up being the likes of former DC Mayor and current Councilman Marion Barry, NY Representative Charles Rangel, former Georgia Rep. Cynthia McKinney, former Detroit Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick, Jesse Jackson, and Al Sharpton, the crop is depressingly thin. 

Speaking of corrupt politicians…

Impeached Illinois Governor Rod Blagoyevich remains blissfully lacking of any sort of moral compass. In a story in the Associated Press today, he compared the day he was arrested to Pearl Harbor saying it came as “a complete surprise…completely unexpected.” Running out of excuses, he is now accusing the Illinois legislature of impeaching him so they can raise taxes. An odd complaint coming from a Democrat. 

Of course, there is one difference between Blagoyevich’s arrest and Pearl Harbor (OK, there are innumerable differences, including the fact that at Pearl Harbor people actually died. I’m focusing on one in particular): He brought it on himself. He tried to sell the US Senate seat vacated by President Obama. There should have been no surprise in his arrest or his impeachment, except, perhaps, the surprise at getting caught. The honorable thing to do would have been to resign. (See Larry Craig, Richard Nixon, Newt Gingrich, Jack Ryan, etc., but not Bill Clinton) That way he could either fight the charges in court, or be pardoned by his successor. What is worse than the crime and even the insistence of his innocence is the arrogance with which he is continuing to run his office. He has gone from simply claiming innocence (which is expected) to turning it into political name-calling (calling the proceedings unconstitutional, making it appear he is being persecuted for his stance on taxes, not even attending the hearings, etc.)

Why is it that Democrats continue to follow the completely illogical and counterintuitive Keynesian theory of economics? President Obama’s stimulus package includes half a trillion – yes, I said half a trillion – dollars in federal spending. That money has to come from somewhere, and it will come either from taxes or loans or simply money being pulled out of a hat. All three of those are bad for the economy. More taxes means people have less disposable income, and, thus, less money. If you have no money you have no incentive to spend money. If money isn’t spent by consumers, producers produce less. Loans are worse because it ties up money from banks, raises interest rates and has to be paid back with long-term tax increases. Money coming from a magic hat devalues the currency, causing inflation.

We’re still waiting on the final disposition of the disastrous pro-abortion legislation known (dishonestly) as the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA). I’ve already dedicated a number of electrons to it, so I won’t go very far, here. Here’s my simple, and unmistakable take on it. FOCA is unconstitutional. It directly violates the 10^th Amendment (giving states the powers not delegated specifically to the Federal government) and implicitly Article 1, section 8 (comprehensively listing every single specific power that Congress has. If it’s not on the list, it’s not something Congress can do). It is a very dangerous precedent if Congress is able to force the States to invalidate their laws. What happens when Congress decides that affirmative action is required in all public university admissions, or when they decide that states must allow gays to marry or adopt?  What if a law had been passed in the 1800s that would have declared slave ownership a fundamental right (as the Democrats believed to the point of secession in the mid 19^th century) and invalidated any state laws barring or even restricting the practice?  

I encourage all 6 of my readers to encourage their friends to write not just their Senators and Representatives in Washington, but their senators, delegates and executives in Augusta, Montpelier, Concord, Boston, Providence, Hartford, Albany, Trenton, Harrisburg, Dover, Annapolis, Charleston, Richmond, Raleigh, Columbia, Atlanta, Tallahassee, Montgomery, Jackson, Nashville, Frankfort, Columbus, Lansing, Indianapolis, Springfield, Madison, St. Paul, Des Moines, Jefferson City, Little Rock, Baton Rouge, Austin, Oklahoma City, Topeka, Lincoln, Pierre, Bismarck, Helena, Cheyenne, Denver, Santa Fe, Phoenix, Salt Lake City, Boise, Carson City, Sacramento, Salem, Olympia, Juneau, and Honolulu and demand that they ignore FOCA if it’s passed, and continue to enforce abortion restrictions that are already in place. If the city of Washington, DC can ignore the Supreme Court and weasel its way into burdensome handgun regulations in direct violation of the Constitution, the several states can ignore an unconstitutional power-grab by Congress.

In the next two weeks, we are likely to witness two events that decisively define Barack Hus-Change Obama’s view on values and morality. The first will involve a special Inaugural prayer service for the incoming President. This prayer service will be officiated by the Rt. Rev. V. Gene Robinson, Episcopal Bishop of New Hampshire. Bishop Robinson is widely known throughout the United States for being the first openly gay bishop in the Episcopal Church. His consecration into that role was the most immediate and direct cause of a partial schism between the Leftist branch of the Episcopal Church, which dominates the church’s teachings, and the conservative American Anglicans. The inclusion of Bishop Robinson – in addition to the invocation to be given by Rev. Rick Warren – in the inaugural festivities is, in and of itself, indicative of the disdain in which President-Elect Obama holds traditional American values, but that’s only part of the story. (In case you’re wondering why I would say that, the fact that Bishop Robinson is openly and explicitly gay, and is maintaining a relationship with another man, obviously outside wedlock, should disqualify him from being in any clergy. That he divorced his wife to enter into the same-sex relationship makes that even more apparent.)

Making matters worse, and showing President-Elect Obama’s true moral colors, is that when Rev. Warren – who believes correctly vis a vis same-sex marriage – was picked to give Obama’s invocation, gay privileges groups complained, loudly, as is typical for that breed. After weeks of complaints, Robinson was added to the program to give a prayer service at the Lincoln Memorial. When asked whether Robinson’s inclusion was because of the complaints, Obama spokesman Clark Stevens simply called Robinson “an important figure in the religious community. We are excited that he will be involved.” Which, when translated into plain, non-leftist-doublespeak English, means “Yes, but we’re not going to actually tell you that.” 

Barack Obama has no moral courage. None. His inclusion of the gay bishop is solely because a loud, shrill part of the Left Wing complained in its typical loud, shrill manner. He caved to the gay privileges lobby at a time when it would have been appropriate to say “No, I want Rick Warren, and I’ll have Rick Warren.” Being President means actually taking a stand, something with which Obama has very little actual experience. I would have disagreed with the choice of Robinson had he been chosen weeks ago, but I would not have used it as proof of Obama’s moral cowardice. I simply would have disagreed with the idea of having a clergyman who can be quoted as saying: “It’s important for any minority to see themselves represented in some way. Whether it be a racial minority, an ethnic minority, or in our case, a sexual minority. Just seeing someone like you up front matters,” or, “While [the Bible, which this Christian cleric will not use in his prayer service] is a holy and sacred text to me, it is not for many Americans. I will be careful not to be especially Christian in my prayer. This is a prayer for the whole nation,” neither of which is a particularly Christian view. (To avoid confusion: homosexuality is a sexual perversion and a pattern of behavior, not the functional equivalent of an ethnic minority. Christians are also taught to evangelize (bring the Gospel, that is, the Christian Bible) to non-Christians. Implying that the Bible or Christian prayers are inappropriate for a prayer service is not what I would expect from a man who has been ordained a bishop.)

Gay privileges are not the only area where Obama is morally bankrupt. Abortion is the other. Though, while in the arena of gay privileges Obama is merely showing his cowardice, in abortion he is showing his true contempt for the Christian values of this country, and the Constitution on which it is founded.

I have mentioned before that the Roe v. Wade decision violates the Constitution. In particular it was a usurpation of power by the US Supreme Court over state laws. Unless a state law specifically violates the Constitution (such as gun control), the Federal bench, including the Supreme Court, has no jurisdiction. Be that as it may, a number of states have challenged Roe by enacting specific and limited restrictions on abortion (parental notification, clinic sterility standards, late-term abortion bans, etc. All of which are violently opposed by the pro-abortion lobby), and the Federal government has itself enacted a law prohibiting the transportation of a minor – by someone other than her parent or legal guardian – across state lines to avoid abortion laws in the minor’s home state (an act normally called “kidnapping”). President-Elect Obama has decreed that one of his first acts as President will be to sign the dishonestly named “Freedom Of Choice Act” (FOCA), which act will essentially nullify all state restrictions on abortion, rendering the transportation across lines law moot, by declaring abortion to be a “fundamental” right. 

FOCA directly violates the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution. That amendment states that all powers not specifically delegated to the Congress (like regulating interstate commerce or raising an army) and not prohibited to the states by the Constitution (like gun control) are reserved to the states. A federal statute (as opposed to a Constitutional Amendment) cannot impose a provision of law on the states unless the Constitution specifically grants Congress that power (Article 1, section 8 lists Congress’s powers), thus a statute cannot be made to nullify state laws. The Act’s “Findings” state that Congress does have that power because of “interstate commerce.”   It defends this view by stating that women go across state lines to procure abortions and would be required to if the state they live in has abortion restrictions, and that doctors often live in different states from where they work, and must cross state lines to perform abortions. That logic fails immediately. Radar detectors are illegal in Virginia and Washington, DC. People traveling from other states must turn them off and put them away upon entering Virginia (according to the law). They may neither be sold in nor shipped to Virginia. Under the theory expressed in FOCA, Congress could decide that there is a right to Radar Detectors and that the Virginia and DC laws are no longer valid. The same could be said for any commodity that is legal in some states and not in others (guns, fireworks, medical marijuana, etc.). 

The whole purpose of our form of government is that the lower levels of governance have the power. The Several States have the right and authority to do pretty much whatever they want so long as it doesn’t violate the Constitution. The Constitution affirms that authority in the Tenth Amendment. Congress cannot tell the states not to regulate something, unless the regulation is unconstitutional. Congress can tell the states not to regulate guns, because the Second Amendment says so. Congress can require the states to provide defense counsel because of the Sixth Amendment. Abortion is not among the enumerated rights of the people, nor is its regulation one of Congress’s enumerated powers. Therefore it is reserved to the states, thus the states have the constitutional authority to restrict abortion or not as they see fit (as was the case in 1972: Some states had tight restrictions (31), others allowed it in some (varying) circumstances (15), still others had few or no restrictions (4).)

FOCA is an unconstitutional attempt by Congress and the in-coming President to usurp authority expressly delegated to the states by the Constitution. States wishing to restrict abortion should ignore FOCA when it is enacted and continue to operate as they do today. If their laws are challenged as violations of FOCA, they should challenge FOCA’s violation of the Tenth Amendment.

HJG

Ah, sunny California, the land of the progressive, and the home of the rich liberal. It should come as no surprise to anyone that the state that gave us Berkeley, the Hollywood Left, and Harvey Milk (who I mention solely because they are making some idiotic movie about him and the commercials (not surprisingly) are everywhere), today gives us people who actually believe that the state’s constitution is unconstitutional, per that state’s constitution.

As anyone not living in a cave knows, Californians once again defied their courts and their leftist benefactors by voting in a constitutional amendment specifically defining marriage as between one man and one woman. The amendment, known in the 2008 election as “Proposition 8” was fiercely attacked by people who believe marriage to simply be a microcosmic civil contract between parties with no broader societal effect. More than just gays and gay activists lent their support to the defeat of Proposition 8, which proposition was necessary because a prior referendum – which had simply made the definition a matter of statutory rather than constitutional law – had been declared unconstitutional by the California Supreme Court. “Republican” Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, the California Episcopal Church and The California Secretary of State – who titled the Proposition a measure that “Eliminates the right of same-sex couples to marry” – not to mention most of Hollywood opposed the measure. Commercials libeling Mormons – who supported the measure – as violent, rights-grabbing thugs abounded. The title of the proposition was deliberately made to pretend that a vote for the proposition was a vote to eliminate someone’s God-given rights. Polls were slanted to show majority opposition to the measure – and later declared inaccurate because of last-minute campaigning by church leaders as opposed to biased polling. More work was put into defeating this measure than was put into electing Barack Obama President, which is saying something.

And still the people voted to explicitly define marriage. Yes, it was only 52%, not a huge majority, but considering the campaign to stop it in the most left-leaning state in the country, by far, that’s still a fair percentage. The fact that how to vote was confusing – many thought “yes” meant “allow gay marriage” – and the fact that the measure appeared to call for the “elimination” of someone’s “rights” if you just read the title probably had something to do with the fact that it was a close election and not a 65-35% blowout, as has happened before.

And yet, the same-sex “marriage” forces still won’t accept defeat. I’ll give them credit, they are persistent. But, then again, so are Islamist terrorists, and they aren’t quite so unethical as gay privileges activists.

Oh, wait, you didn’t think the gay privileges activists were being unethical? You thought they were just being persistent and manipulative? Well, let’s see. First off, there’s the dishonest and manipulative title of the proposition.  You know, the part that says “Eliminates the right…” First off, the right of a man to marry a man does not exist, never has, never will. Rights don’t come from government, they come from God. Government merely affirms and protects or denies and oppresses them. That’s how the US Constitution reads, and why it was written that way. The “right” to same-sex marriage is a concept created, not even by government, but by a tiny segment of a tiny segment of the population. Therefore, it isn’t a right but a privilege. Since the right didn’t exist in the first place, it cannot be eliminated. Eliminating privileges given to a class of people based on some accidental characteristic – in this case their sexual behavior – is the most important principle of our form of government. 

You then have all the protests and commercials and videos. Church services were disrupted by gay privileges activists. Christians were assaulted and their belongings damaged (the woman with the Styrofoam cross, for example). Videos calling Christianity bigoted, and saying that God or Jesus would allow gay behavior now because society wants it (which isn’t true, either) were run before, during, and after the election.

Now we come to the pending court case. They want you to believe that a provision in the state’s constitution is unconstitutional. In particular, they claim that Proposition 8 should not have been an “amendment” but a “revision.” Further, they state that the California Constitution requires that “revisions” be approved by 2/3 vote of both houses of the legislature. “They” are lying.

Article XVIII of the Constitution of California provides three methods to amend or revise said constitution. The legislature may propose the amendment or revision by 2/3 vote. It may create a constitutional convention by 2/3 vote, which convention only needs a majority vote to propose the amendment or revision. The electorate may amend the constitution by initiative. And all amendments and revisions proposed are voted on by the people. However, there is no apparent distinction between a “revision” and an “amendment.” Nowhere in the Constitution of California is “revision” or “amendment” defined. Furthermore, even presuming that there is a distinction, and that a “revision” means a change to existing text or the repeal of an existing provision in the constitution as opposed to simply adding to it, there is no enumerated right to “marry” someone of the same sex. In fact, Article I Section 7 paragraph (b) states, and I quote: “A citizen or class of citizens may not be granted privileges or immunities not granted on the same terms to all citizens.” Any man, gay or not, can marry any one woman, gay or not, provided that neither is already married and that they don’t have a prohibited degree of consanguinity. 

The rule applies the same to everyone. A polygamist Mormon or Muslim, or a person who believes he should be allowed to marry (a) his sister, (b) a minor child, or (c) his sheep are also prohibited from entering into those “marital” relationships. (It is worth noting here that marrying multiple wives, close relatives, and children all have infinitely greater historical and modern traditions than a man “marrying” a man, yet no one seriously expects the government to allow any of that.) The “right to marry” that gays claim really means the privilege of defining marriage to include their peculiar sexual proclivities. If peculiar sexual proclivities give someone (or some group) the right to redefine marriage to fit those proclivities, why, then, can a particularly promiscuous man not marry more than one woman to legitimize his multiple sexual relationships? Or why can a pedophile not marry a child (or combining the two, multiple children?) I’m not saying that allowing gays to marry will definitely put us on the “slippery slope” to adult-child or bestial marriage. I am saying that if you allow gays to redefine marriage, not allowing polygamists to do so to fit their peculiar proclivities gives one group of people a privilege not enjoyed by all equally.

It should surprise no one that a lifestyle that necessarily violates natural laws and people openly and obviously hostile to the teaching of God’s morality have no moral qualms about distorting the realities of their life choices. It should also surprise no one that such people prefer to leave decisions on the law to unelected judges rather than the electorate. As with all Leftist policies it’s all about control. They want to be the ones to define morality, to the exclusion of your church, your parents, and your own conscience. Because when they can define morality, they can say that things like intolerance, environmental irresponsibility, and bigotry are all far greater sins than piddly things like adultery (Bill Clinton), theft (Winona Ryder, Sandy Berger), murder (OJ Simpson, Andrea Yates), and treason (John Walker Lindh); and that believing differently is a sign of intolerance (see above.)

In this country we are supposed to have checks and balances among the branches of government (executive, legislative, judicial) so that one cannot wield too much power. Both the US Constitution and the constitutions of the several states provide for those checks and balances by separating powers among them. Legislators make the laws, executives put the laws into effect, and jurists apply the laws to particular actions and ensure that they follow the appropriate constitution. If the jurists can declare the constitution unconstitutional, what protection do we have from them?