Two Men, Three Women, a Goat and a Baby

by: the Common Constitutionalist

For years now we conservatives have been warning of the slippery societal slope we’re on. You don’t have to be a “social conservative” or “values voter” to see it. Just look around.

From the increasing acceptance of the coarsening of our language, to the ever-increasing tolerance and acceptance of marijuana use, to the destruction of the institution of marriage as one man and one woman.

And that is what I wish to discuss. The purposeful destruction of the institution of conventional marriage and if unchecked and unchallenged, what it is guaranteed to lead to.

I may be wrong, and I don’t think I am, but every state that has passed a law and/or legally altered its Constitution to affirm the definition of marriage, did so by a vote of the people.

Most state votes affirmed conventional marriage overwhelmingly. In other words, the citizens know what marriage is and what it should remain as, but the federal black robed oligarchs that rule against the people don’t care about the vote, or the People’s right to govern themselves.

I personally don’t care who anyone marries, but this fight isn’t about conventional versus same-sex marriage. It never was. It was never about Johnny and Bobby declaring their love for one another. It’s always been about the destruction of marriage and the undermining of conventional values. read more

Marriage in the Supreme Court

by: the Common Constitutionalist

However you feel regarding homosexual marriage, it is my contention that the United States Supreme Court has no business involving itself in such matters or in the state of Californias business.

Why does the Supreme Court feel the need to concern itself, or that the average american citizen believes it has that right? Answer: 4 liberal activist justices, which is coincidently the number needed to accept a case. States have their own rules, own constitution, their own courts and supreme courts as well as their own state judicial review.

The federal government, in my opinion, has absolutely no roll in or right to hear this case. This is a state issue. The U.S. supreme court should vacate the 9th circus court of appeals decision (as it does on a regular basis) as well as the federal district courts decision and declare that this is a matter for the state of California to decide, which it already has.

The state of California allows for popular referendum votes in order to amend the California constitution. The people of California overwhleming voted to amend their constitution via proposition 8, to state that marriage is between a man and a woman.  Because the politicians in California refused to uphold the legally binding California constitutional amendment, the left saw an opportunity to usurp the state constitution.  I’m not certain, but I would guess that the politicians in California took an oath to defend and protect the constitution of California. Frankly they should all be brought up on charges for failure to properly discharge their duties and removed from office. They have no right to pick and choose what they will and will not enforce.

Oh, by the way, a majority of blacks and hispanics voted in favor of proposition 8. Why are those in favor of overturning the amendment not called racists? Just asking.

What is the point in having states at all if they can’t run themselves? For that matter, why even have a state legislature, a governor, a congress, senate or president? If the United States Supreme Court is the end all and be all decision maker, why not just let them run the country? What is the point in Federalism; checks and balances.

These black robed gods are evidently infallible, except when they are. Throughout our history our supreme court has been comprised of human beings, not gods. Their have been drunks, womanizers, bigots, Klan members, etc., that sat on the bench. They are frankly as fallible as the rest of us and as Chief justice John Roberts recently demonstrated, they are just as prone to public (or some kind of) pressure as are we .

Here are just a few of the really poor decisions handed down by 9 black robed infallible gods:

Dred Scott v. Sandford 1857: All Americans of African descent were not citizens and would have no rights.

Plessy v. Ferguson 1896:   It protected racial discrimination in state laws under the “separate but equal” doctrine. It expressly upheld the right of states to force segregation upon others.

Home Building & Loan v. Blaisdell 1934: The Court created the Emergency Exceptions Doctrine, arguing that the Great Depression was so bad that government could interfere with private contracts.

 Wickard v. Filburn 1942: Roscoe Filburn was a farmer who grew wheat to feed to his livestock. The Court determined that Filburn’s self-sufficiency caused him to buy less wheat from outside suppliers. They decided this marginal impact was enough to subject him to federal regulation under the Commerce Clause

Korematsu v. U.S. 1944: Chief Justice Hugo Black wrote for the Court that the government’s need to protect itself from spies outweighed the civil rights of Fred Korematsu and other innocent Americans of Japanese ancestry allowing the internment of over 120,000 Japanese Americans during World War II.

 Bennis v. Michigan 1996: Tina Bennis and her husband owned a car, in which Tina’s husband engaged the services of a prostitute. The State of Michigan seized the car as a public nuisance. The Supreme Court determined that the government could take Tina Bennis’ property, without due process or appeal, even though she didn’t know that her property was being used this way.

Kelo v. New London 2005: the  High Court extended the governments ability to seize private property under eminent domain, even when the only public purpose was to enrich the city’s treasury.This decision afforded a government the right to take anyone’s private property if it feels that someone else can make better use of it.

As I said; this is not a case for the U.S. Supreme Court and is not a 14th Amendment issue if you know anything about the 14th Amendment. The 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution was ratified in 1868 specifically to demand that freed blacks, post Civil War, are citizens, period, and as such are afforded the same constitutional rights as whites. It has nothing at all to do with homosexual marriage or any other kind of marriage.

The Court should just say that this is a 10th Amendment issue and be done with it.

Does the 10th amendment, states rights, mean nothing anymore? I thought the left was all about diversity. Does not the 10th amendment tippify diversity?

As many in California have done for a number of reasons, those who do not accept California law are welcome to vote with their feet and move to a more amenable state. But, of course that is not the lefts way, is it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Tolerance of the Intolerant

I’ve seen my share of hypocritical people and groups over the years.  Generally, it’s the people that scream the loudest about injustices that are the ones most guilty of injustices themselves.  It seems no one else is entitled to have their own opinion if it differs from those doing the screaming.

People like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson are so fast to point the racial prejudice finger at anyone else, but I find their actions and words to be among the most racially hateful and bigoted I’ve ever seen.  Following the shooting death of Trayvon Martin, blacks across the nation were taking their racial justice out on whites, even when George Zimmerman is half Hispanic.  The ones yelling race the loudest proved to be the most racially intolerant.

Yet, none of that holds a candle to the absolute intolerance of homosexual activists.  One of their biggest grievances with the rest of the world is that we are intolerant of their lifestyle.  In the past decade, homosexual activists have filed numerous lawsuits based on intolerance of others.  They have pushed to become accepted as a normal lifestyle.  They have caused the military to accept them.  They have been getting more states to legalize their civil unions or marriages.  They have gotten the public schools to start teaching students across the nation that homosexuality is normal .  They are even pushing their ways on churches, businesses and government offices.

When companies like J.C. Penney, Sears, Target, Starbucks and others, embrace homosexual marriage, they are praised by the homosexual community as well as the national media.  But let one company make a stand for traditional marriage and all the activists go on the war path. Basically, all hell breaks loose.

Last week, Dan Cathy, president of Chick-fil-A announced that they are a family owned business (that means they’re privately owned) and that they still embrace and endorse traditional marriage.  The rabid homosexual crowd instantly declared war on the Christian based company as they have with so many others.  They have gone so far as to declare organizations that continue to embrace traditional marriage as hate groups and accuse them of being intolerant.

If you disagree with homosexual activists, you are part of a hate group.  If they disagree with you, they will take you to court, sue you and force you to accept their lifestyle.  In other words, it is their way or no way. 

When you weigh it all out, homosexual activists are the most intolerant group of people in the world today, save for radical islamists.

Attribution: 

See I Told Ya So

Last year I wrote an article regarding the defense of marriage. How marriage is between one man and one woman. You may call a homosexual relationship anything you like, except for a marriage. I, for one, will never accept turning thousands of years of tradition on its head just to placate a miniscule portion of our society.

I refuse to even play the rename game, calling a homosexual, gay. Not because I’m homophobic. I couldn’t care less what you do with your life, but don’t go changing the correct terminology, homosexual, to gay just because it sounds more palatable. It’s like calling a black an African American, when their family has been here for a hundred years. I won’t do that either. Okay, enough ranting.

In my defense of marriage, I stated that homosexual marrige is just the beginning. It would never stop there. I claimed that sooner or later someone would suggest marrying their child, or 5 people or their pet peguin. This is what always happens when the door is cracked open. Someone sticks their foot in, then their leg and finally the door becomes useless. This is why it is so important to stop these things before they even start.

Welcome to the open door!

Legalizing Polygamy Doesn’t Go Far Enough, ASU Professor claims

by:

Arizona State University philosopher Elizabeth Brake doesn’t scare easily. An advocate of same-sex unions, she doesn’t flinch when conservatives argue that if two men are granted the right to marry, why not three? Brake boldly declares that marriage should not be restricted to opposite-sex couples, or indeed to couples at all. Her book, Minimizing Marriage, hot off the prestigious Oxford University Press, pushes traditional logic by claiming that “liberal reasons for recognizing same-sex marriage also require recognition of groups, polyamorists, polygamists, friends, urban tribes, and adult care networks.”

“Urban tribes?”

And not only does Brake support “loving” same-sex couples or groups, but she claims “loving” relationships — which she calls “amatonormative” relationships (from amor, the Latin word for “love”), should not be the standard by which we judge a “marriage.” She fearlessly claims, “amatonormative judgments are false, and … discrimination on their basis is morally wrong.”

In short, you don’t even have to like someone to have sex with him. Or her. Or them. Or be “married.”

Before terminating his campaign, Rick Santorum was criticized for attempting to frighten us with the prospect of “man on child” and “man on dog” unions should the State recognize same-sex unions. And here is where Brake’s bravery breaks down. Brake assures us that her theory “complies with criminal law.”

Ah, yes; that enduring paragon of morality, “the State” and its “criminal law.”

Of course Brake knows that in generations past, “the criminal law” punished straightforward adultery, to say of nothing deviant perversion or an anonymous hip-hop club orgy. Brake knows that today’s fears are tomorrow’s “progressive public policy,” thanks to daring lawyers and squishy Republican judges. For now, she assures us that “children and nonhuman animals … are not legally competent to consent.”

“Nonhuman animals.” I’m glad she cleared that up. I was thinking about the other kind of animals.

“Legally competent to consent.” For now. Until the law is changed and children are granted the “right” to “consent” to whatever deviants can dish out.

In 1913, the Texas Supreme Court reflected the views of a Christian worldview when it declared:

Marriage was not originated by human law. When God created Eve, she was a wife to Adam; they then and there occupied the status of husband to wife and wife to husband. . . . When Noah was selected for salvation from the flood, he and his wife and his three sons and their wives were placed in the Ark; and, when the flood waters had subsided and the families came forth, it was Noah and his wife and each son and his wife . . . . The truth is that civil government has grown out of marriage . . . which created homes, and population, and society, from which government became necessary [sic] . . . . [Marriages] will produce a home and family that will contribute to good society, to free and just government, and to the support of Christianity. . . . It would be sacrilegious to apply the designation “a civil contract” to such a marriage. It is that and more; a status ordained by God.
Grigsby v Reib, 153 S.W. 1124, 1129-30 (TxSupCt 1913)

Brake knows that Courts don’t speak in these terms anymore. And parents who sit their children at the feet of professors like Brake in secular universities like ASU are planting the seeds of an impersonal world which substitutes anonymous “urban tribes” for a man and a woman who “love and cherish” “till death do us part.”

The Real War on Women

Recently the left has tried to advance the notion that there is a war on women being waged by the Republican Party and members of the right.

It turns out that this got very little traction and has all but fizzled out. The left may try to resurrect it as the general election heats up, but I doubt it will achieve any traction or be a deciding factor in the election one way or the other.

There is, however, a real war on women being waged daily and has been going on for centuries.

I speak, of course, of Islam and countries that use Sharia as the law of the land.

In Islamic society, a woman or girl is subjugated to, at best, a second-class citizen, or more appropriately, enslaved.

In Islam, marriage for the woman is not a happy experience.

In Islam, the wife is a slave to her husband. The Islamic traditions stress that a woman should obey her husband’s commands. The Quran gives a man complete authority in marriage: “Men stand superior to women” (Q 4.34).

In addition to absolute obedience, a woman should revere her husband because Islam teaches that, “If a woman knew the right of a husband, she would not sit at his lunch and supper time until he finishes.” One time, a woman came to the Prophet of Islam to ask about her obligations to her husband. He said, “If he had pus from his hair part to his foot (from head to toe) and you licked him, you would not have shown him enough gratitude.”

The Quran gives the husband the right to punish his wife if she goes outside the parameters that he draws for her. It provides men with instructions: “But those whose perverseness ye fear, admonish them and remove them into bed chambers and beat them; but if they submit to you, then you do not seek a way against them.” (Q 4.34).

In reading the verse above one will notice that these instructions were given to the husband concerning a wife whom he only fears disloyalty, not a wife that actually committed a disloyal act.

At the beginning of marriage, the husband reminds his wife about the rights that are given to him by Sharia Law. He can say to her, “Fear Allah! I have rights due to me from you. Repent from what you’re doing. Know that obedience to me is one of your obligations.” If the wife refuses to fulfill the sexual desires of her husband, that he should remind her of his rights over her body.

According to Islamic teaching, if the wife remains “disobedient”, her husband should ignore her. This means he abstains from sexual intercourse with her as part of this phase of the punishment.

The word hajr is interpreted to mean, “to refuse to share their beds”. The word hajr actually has several meanings. One of these meanings indicates the hajr of the camel when the owner binds the animal with a hijar, or rope. This rather disturbing interpretation means that the term used in Q 4.34, “refuse to share their beds”, can actually mean to bind the wife and force her to have sexual intercourse.

The Quranic principle of a man’s right to a woman’s body is not open for discussion. Regardless of her psychological or physical state, she has to obey the man’s command to lie in bed and have sexual relations with him.

The prophet of Islam repeatedly made statements advocating this view:

“If a man calls his woman to his bed, and she does not come, and then he goes to bed angry at her, the Angels will curse her until the morning.”

If the previous methods, including instruction and verbal abuse, failed to correct a wife’s behavior, then the husband is given the right to beat his wife. Even though verse Q 4.34 does not specify the mode or limit of the beating, it is believed that the prophet of Islam but a condition on the beating, classifying it as “not excessive”.

When interpreting the phrase “not excessive beating”, Islamic scholars offer the following guidelines:

Avoid hitting the wife’s face. Do not break any of the wife’s bones. Use nonfatal implements or physical force, such as the use of al-siwak (a twig of the Salvadora persica tree), or shoelaces, etc. and the use of the hand (hitting, slapping, punching the neck and chest, etc.).

The wife may receive a beating for any behavior that incites the anger of her husband or for every act that her husband does not like. Current Islamic literature supports the legitimacy of beating and its benefits for “upbringing”.

The abuse of women under Sharia law extends not only to wives but to all females, regardless of age.

Most are forbidden to work or leave the house without a male escort. They are not allowed to seek medical attention from a male doctor and are forced to cover themselves head to toe, even covering their eyes.

It has been widely publicized in Saudi Arabia, which is most Sharia adherent, that women are not allowed to drive, which is rather immaterial, since, for the most part, they are not allowed to leave the house.

Child marriages are quite common as is giving away girls for simple dispute resolution. Forced isolation in the home, exchange marriage and honor killings are also part of Sharia.

In Afghanistan a number of women have been known to set themselves on fire because they cannot bear their lives. Between 60 and 80% of all marriages in Afghanistan are forced as many as 57% of girls are married off below the age of 16, some as young as six. Girls are a commodity and marriage is essentially just a financial transaction.

Sharia law allows polygamy and only men can acquire easy divorce. Under Sharia, the marriage contract actually has three spaces to be filled in by the groom, with the names and addresses of additional wives should he have any.

The penalty for a woman’s extramarital sexual indiscretion is death by stoning or beheading. Rape is a crime under Sharia law, but the criminal and guilty party is always the female, regardless of age or circumstance.

Women who’ve been raped cannot report the crime because they require 4 males to witness the crime and run the risk of being prosecuted for having sex outside marriage.

Saudi women are denied the right to make even the most trivial decisions for their children and are not permitted to travel without permission from the child’s father.

So the next time you encounter a woman complaining that she can’t afford her contraception or bellyaching over some supposed “glass ceiling”, remind her how blessed she is to be born and raised in this country, where she has the same rights as everyone else.

 Attribution: AL FADI