Whatever happened to “We the People?!”
by Colonel Bob Pappas, USMC, Retired
Isn’t there something somewhere about “We the people?” Maybe I was wrong, maybe it said, “We the presiding elite, intent upon enacting our will over the objections of the people, do hereby interpret as we see fit, to accomplish whatever we wish, this Constitution of the United States.”
The recent Judge Walker Court Decision that rendered that portion of California’s Constitution that defines marriage as the union between one man and one woman as unconstitutional is rife with legal fantasy. The entire decision is laced with preconceived bias that one should expect from the fact that the sitting Judge is homosexual. In most rational places in the universe the fact that he judged the case would itself be adjudged a “conflict of interest.” Walker may be a hero to contemporary homosexuals and liberals but his decision and memory will live in infamy.
One dictionary definition of equal is: “identical in mathematical value or logical denotation; like in quality, nature, or status.”
The Court anchors its decision in the fallacious premise that the 14th Article of Amendment to the U.S. Constitution under the equal protection provision bestows the right of marriage on homosexuals. If homosexual conduct and therefore marriage was equal to normal marriage and sex the Court’s lengthy tortured argument and process might have been adjudged as fair and proper. However, it should be evident to any rational being that there are inherent physical and psychological distinctions between heterosexual and homosexual relationships. That fundamental fact is lost on the Walker Court and all who celebrate the Court’s decision.
In the process, Walker dismissed seven million Californians (and, one might add, the people of the world) who voted to enshrine the traditional definition of marriage in the California Constitution for as long as history has been recorded, as the union between male and female. But, alas no one should let rationality and eons long tradition become an impediment to irrational liberal behavior and thought.
Aside. One wonders if Muslims will give one wit about homosexual marriage, or for that matter the U.S. Constitution as Muslims proceed to decapitate homosexuals and liberals. Feminazis and adulteresses would be stoned to death and women would be confined to their homes. Think not? What happens in Muslim countries? Obama said, “I will stand with Muslims.”
What the Walker Court told the people of California, the United States and the world is that he has no sympathy or regard for their historic definition of marriage, he has no empathy for the masses of people whose relationship to their wives and husbands has been equated to perverted sexual behavior in order to advance the so called “rights.” Walker and his homosexual cohorts are perverting the Constitution to cram an unwanted redefinition down the throats of Americans in another instance of the manifest tyrannical minority inflicting its will upon the majority.
This situation is similar to the recent infliction of so called, “Health Care Reform” upon an unwilling populace albeit by a majority of politicians, but acting against the evident will of a large majority of the American people. How long is it until November?
Whereas it was argued that denial of a marriage license creates unequal status, there is nothing equal between normal sexual behavior and homosexual conduct from the outset. Additionally, logically and physically there is nothing equal between the two in relation to the historical institution and consummation of marriage. In the final analysis Judge Walker’s ruling has the same depth and quality of rational thought and logic that would render an apple equal to a fish. Given inherent differences that are factually obvious, one must conclude Judge Walker invented yet another instance of legal fiction, and schizophrenia that perverts the Constitution and diminishes the American nation.
The foregoing does not imply that there is no love or commitment in homosexual unions which alone do not constitute marriage. Rather, the decision renders the California Constitution and the historical meaning and physical consummation of marriage as irrelevant and without distinction between participants in traditional marriage and those in a homosexual union. People can have love and commitment for an animal, should not such a pair be issued a marriage license? Some think that they should. Under this ruling shouldn’t humans be able to marry their non-human lovers? And, if not why not? Why should marriage be confined to humans and not between humans and animals? Isn’t it a violation of human rights to deny such a marriage? And so, Pandora’s Box has been cracked upon.
Activists’ current effort is to fundamentally change the eons long traditional definition of marriage to erase evident distinctions, and thus to “normalize” homosexual behavior, which on its face is an exercise in fantasy.
Even in a completely secular society forcing legal acceptance of a homosexual “marriage” would be impossible even if acquiesced outwardly, and they know that. Never, will any normal society anywhere permanently accept homosexual conduct or homosexual “marriage” as the same or equal to heterosexual relationships because it is not, no matter how the law may be perverted and twisted to accommodate the issue. It is a simple fact that the Judge Walker’s legal fiction cannot permanently overcome reality no matter the length, stretch, and tortured legal fiction of his argument.
With all of this noted, one cannot help but find comic relief in homosexual behavior in which females try to cast themselves in the physical role of males with their butch haircuts, strapped-on devices and all manner of obverse paraphernalia; not to mention men engaging in sex in a most comical, if not disgusting way. It is a spectacle so cartoonish and buffoonish that it isn’t worthy of further discussion here, and is the reason that for centuries homosexuals were referred to as being queer.
Rational people will never accept the notion that a homosexual relationship is the same as traditional marriage because to do so would require the abrogation of common sense and reality.
Let’s see, if the U.S. Constitution included an amendment that defined the institution of marriage as between one man and one woman, would it be constitutional? Probably not in the Walker Court. Does the tenth article of amendment give the States and the people the right to govern themselves? Evidently not in the Walker Court. What entity issues marriage licenses, States or the Federal Government? According to Walker, the Federal Government because he effectively took that right away from the States with his decision. How do you say, t_y_r_a_n_n_y?
Semper Fidelis
Wild Thing’s comment…….
I mentioned before on here that several years ago when we lived in Calif. we had voted for Prop. 187, it was dealing with the problem of the illegals. It won by a huge majority of votes through the entire State of California.
However, the left did not like the outcome of the vote so they took it too a Judge and naturally he was a liberal like they were and he overturned our vote. POOF gone, our vote counted for nothing. That really freaked me out to see how little our vote counted. How the wishes and demands of the left and a liberal Judge could erase such a vast majority of citizens speaking out in their vote.
Now we have seen it again, with the vote about marriage.
Each time this happens IMO it really puts our freedoms at risk, our Constitution thrown in the trash and it is always done by the left.
….Thank you Mark for sending this to me.
Mark
3rd Mar.Div. 1st Battalion 9th Marine Regiment
1/9 Marines aka The Walking Dead
VN 66-67