“With all precincts reporting, 71% of voters supported Proposition C, establishing a state law that says Missouri cannot compel people to pay a penalty or fine if they fail to carry health coverage…
The state law runs counter to the federal health law President Barack Obama signed in March, which calls on most Americans to carry coverage or pay a fine.
Some state attorneys general have challenged the insurance mandate as unconstitutional.”
Click here for another report.
8 comments:
The will of the people doesn't matter anymore. Federal judges rule the land, or so it seems.
RICH,
Yep, the judicial branch is where the Dims do an end run around the Constitution when they find they are unable to ram their legislative tyranny down our throats in Congress (without even reading the damn bills they pass into law).
That said, if you are alluding to the recent Prop 8 ruling in California, the openly gay judge who made that ruling might (in this rare instance) actually have the Constitution on his side. It appears headed to the Supreme Court (where, I suspect, we'll get a 5 to 4 ruling against Prop 8).
Remember, our Republic (as opposed to a Democracy) is designed to avoid (at least in theory) the tyranny of the majority. And, it is not inconceivable that majority opinion (in such a case as this) could run afoul of the Constitution (in which case, the Constitution trumps public opinion).
Additionally with the culture, parental rights, the Constitution and more under assault in so many far more meaningful ways, gay marriage strikes me as a divisive distraction. We might be better off allowing gay marriage and fighting other far more significant battles which are far more relevant to the future of our country and the rest of human civilization.
If you had not intended to allude to the Prop 8 ruling, then please ignore this rant. ;-)
"the tyranny of the majority".
Tyranny is a governement in which a single ruler is vested with absolute power, which is in direct contrast to the will of the people.
"We might be better off allowing gay marriage and fighting other far more significant battles"
Surrender? No, I disagree. There is nothing more important than family. Now I don't have a major problem with civil unions. As long as the same rules are in place where gay couples are held to the same standards as married couples (ie: alimony, child support).
Although I feel this lifestyle is destructive, gays should be entitled to the same benefits, if they are legal citizens, but it is not marriage.
Marriage, as defined in the bible, is a religous term signifying the union between one (1) man and one (1) woman. When it comes to religion, there cannot be a gay marriage.
The state is on a mission to remove religion (atleast Christianity IMHO) from public observance, yet has no problem interfering and redefining marriage (religion) when it comes to homosexuality. Hypocritical.
Besides homosexuality is unnatural. Historically, if it were not for breeders (heterosexuals), we would not exist as a human race.
RICH,
1) Click here to better understand the strategy behind the war on Christianity.
2) It is arguable that resisting gay marriage works to the benefit of those waging that war on Christianity. The war on poverty was never intended to eliminate poverty -- quite the contrary. Similarly, the strategists behind Cultural Marxism actually prefer that gay marriage never becomes a reality. Class warfare is all about perpetuating and escalating a never ending war. Why do you think Obama has voiced exactly the same position as you have espoused?
"Why do you think Obama has voiced exactly the same position as you have espoused?"
Because Obama purposely speaks out of both sides of his mouth. Never judge Obama by his words, judge him by his actions (or inactions).
Obama is not a uniter -- he is a divider. He uses chaos and confusion (sometimes unintentionally, what do you expect for his lack of experience) as tools to assist in the Coming Insurrection, which sounds eerily similar to the Islamists who pray for the coming of the Mahdi.
"The war on poverty was never intended to eliminate poverty."
Are you implying that my war against gay marriage is not intended to stop gay marriage? And what about children raised by homosexuals, like my next door neighbors?
According the American College of Pediatricians...
"Data on the long-term outcomes of children placed in homosexual households is sparse and gives reason for concern. This research has revealed that children reared in homosexual households are more likely to experience sexual confusion, engage in risky sexual experimentation, and later adopt a homosexual identity. This is concerning since adolescents and young adults who adopt the homosexual lifestyle are at increased risk for mental health problems, including major depression, anxiety disorders, conduct disorders, substance dependence, and especially suicidal ideation and suicide attempts."
This lifestyle is unnatural. UNNATURAL. Being politically correct and surrendering is not going to make this nation any better or stronger. I am arguing that it would do the exact opposite.
We are turning into a nanny state.
Thanks for the link to the war on Christianity. I don't have time to read it now... but I will.
RICH,
1) You will better understand my comment after reading the link describing the doctrine of Cultural Marxism. The war on Christianity is one facet of that doctrine.
2) No, it is the Cultural Marxists who prefer to endlessly perpetuate the class warfare -- that is precisely why Obama is (quite deliberately) a divider. If gay marriage were accepted, that would take away one bit of their ammo for waging class warfare.
3) I suppose I view this issue somewhat analogously to how I view narcotics. Obviously, narcotics -- including pot -- are harmful. But, the far greater harm is done by criminalizing narcotics. Analogously, the divisions deliberately sewn by the Cultural Marxists may be doing greater harm than gay marriage would.
"You will better understand my comment after reading the link describing the doctrine of Cultural Marxism."
I have and do. Thank you.
"far greater harm is done by criminalizing narcotics."
I agree. I am am against legalizing it, but am for decriminalizing it. Hefty fines will make people think twice. But there are ramifications for that as well. A never ending battle it seems.
"If gay marriage were accepted, that would take away one bit of their ammo for waging class warfare."
Our future is only as bright as the light we shine on our youth. War, although brutal, is natural.
"As long as there are men, there will be war."
- Albert Einstein
Homosexuality is UNNATURAL. I think you are making a mistake by giving up on this battle.
2 words: Nanny state. Have a nice weekend!
RICH,
Respectfully, it is not possible for me to give up on an issue that was never important to me.
I confess, I am not a person of faith. And, I am more of a Libertarian than a Cultural Conservative. Hence, I tend to err on the side of individual liberties. But, by now, you know that I value what religion and religious institutions bring to our culture.
If we are to win the culture war (against our common enemy -- the Cultural Marxists), it will be necessary for Libertarians and Cultural Conservatives to make compromises in order to find common ground. Happily, I can report that you and I already share common ground:
1) I gather we both support Civil Unions. And, I agree that this is the sensible compromise for all reasonable persons from all sides. I further believe that the government has no business defining what does and does not constitute marriage -- so, I guess I am actually passively opposed to Prop 8. I believe the battle over the definition of marriage belongs only to persons of faith to fight out within their various religious institutions.
2) Understanding, as I do, the doctrine of Cultural Marxism and the war on Christianity inherent to that doctrine, I stand shoulder to shoulder with my allies among the Cultural Conservatives in defending Christianity against this assault. In a nutshell, our Constitution provides for freedom OF religion, NOT freedom FROM religion. I strongly support the Constitutional right of all Americans to freely exercise their religious beliefs any darn place they please. And, THAT is an issue I will NEVER give up on.
That said, I strongly oppose the anti-American politically motivated Imam who wants to build his politically oriented Mosque 2 blocks from ground zero. In that case, I object on political grounds, NOT religious grounds. If we were not currently at war with that particular political ideology, I would err on the side of political freedom. Because we ARE currently at war with that political ideology, I prefer not to give the enemy a strategic propaganda base at that location (or, in the case of this particular Imam, any other location on our soil).
Post a Comment