Thursday, August 5, 2010

One Big(ger) Gay Mistake

Over at Live Out Loud!, Dr. Gina Loudon wrote a post entitled One Big Gay Mistake in which she admits she must now grudgingly endorse a Constitutional Amendment on marriage being between one man and one woman.

No she mustn't.

I don't know Dr. Loudon, but I've heard her on the radio and read her blog. I haven't heard her say it, but my read would be that she would describe herself as a libertarian-oriented conservative, or something along those lines. This position is not consistent with her otherwise libertarian principles.

A judge overturning the will of the majority on this issue is a travesty. But pursuing a constitutional amendment to fight it is to surrender ground and fight on the enemy's terms. The whole federal experiment has failed and it has failed at precisely the point that Dr. Loudon writes earlier in her post:

There is a huge undercurrent desire to restore State Sovereignty which is unique in the American experiment. Our Founding Fathers meant for an extremely limited Federal government to handle only those duties expressly assigned to them and let the States handle most. They even clarified this position with the 10th Amendment which expressly reserved power to the States. Had you told a Founder in Philadelphia in 1779, that you believed the federal government should be regulating abortion “rights” or marriage “questions” they would have locked you up in an asylum as clearly delusional.

Dr. Loudon is correct on all counts. But then she waffles:

State Sovereignty advocates who favor a limited Federal role now have to consider a position I now must grudgingly endorse–the only way to respect the rights of Californians and solid majorities in nearly every State that has had a simple up or down referendum on gay marriage, is to pass a United States Constitutional Amendment declaring marriage to be between one man and one woman.

Fighting gay marriage with a Constitutional Amendment is to admit defeat on the most fundamental problem facing America today -- a federal government (and its court system) that is completely unbound by the U.S. Constitution coupled with a country full of sheeple who are either unable or unwilling to call them to task. Dr. Loudon has the right idea in her first quote, above: The only organized bodies with the power to fight the federal government on this are the 50 states of the union. However, fighting this issue with a constitutional amendment is a flawed strategy. It is flawed because it attacks at the margins rather than at the heart of the issue. It is akin to the NFL fighting a corrupt referee's union by organizing to pass a constitutional amendment to make the referees put both hands in the air when the ball crosses the goal line.

They already know they are bound to do that.

They are revolutionaries at heart and they are using their power to revolutionize the system, and unless you challenge them at their power source, you will be chasing your tale for generations. If and when you pass that amendment (which takes years in the case of an amendment to the Constitution), they will already have played you for a fool in 75 other ways and be well on their way to planning the next 75.

As I've argued before (e.g., here and here), we need to organize and fight with real weapons, not with the rubber swords handed to us by the enemy when we knock on his door to come "fight" him in his own living room.

Jefferson and Madison and Calhoun knew what those weapons were:

Nullification.

Nullification.

Nullification.

And if/when that fails, secession.

Let's not be played for fools any longer. Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's.

But not one farthing more.

4 comments:

"Mr. Dad" said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
"Mr. Dad" said...

Good insight, Jason. You have dug deep on this issur, drawing not only "a line in the sand" with regard to the federal government, but actually digging a trench (gorge?) that would make playing "footsy" with them (e.g., constitutional amendments) impossible. They've already shown us that the U.S. Constitution (that we know) is, in their estimation, only smudge-able ink (if indeed ink at all)!! Rubber swords indeed . . . or guns with blanks or no firing pins are not the solution.

"Mr. Dad" said...

"Iron sharpens iron, so one man sharpens another." — PROVERBS 27:17
"A good friend is not someone who necessarily agrees with everything you do and say—it's somebody who lovingly challenges you to be a better person. We grow in maturity when we can test our thoughts and ideas against another person, and when we're open to correction when we're wrong." (Gospel.com

Dave Linton said...

Jason, you are absolutely right. A strategy of amending the Constitution to eliminate some magically found right in the Constitution is admitting defeat. There is no way in hades that there is any right to a Christian marriage for two gay individuals in the Constitution. To allow the progressives to say there is one and then propose to amend the Constitution is admitting defeat and trying to win back what is already ours. You also implicitly moved the discussion in the right direction. Let's not react to a lowly District Court ruling, a ruling by a judge who apparently has an agenda. We need to found our Nullification or Sucession on the clear history of the Supreme Court decisions moving away from the original intent of the Constitution. I don't know if the states are ready for that yet, but after the Supreme Court gets done ruling on Obamacare, Immigration and Marriage, it may be a different story.

Post a Comment