Truths In History

NO MORE SILENCE!

Comments

Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty. We fell behind on our payments.
[this is good]
Today the judges are deciding and overruling the vote of the people. It appears they may get away with it for the first time in our history. If Democrats get the top seat they will put more judges just like these in the top court in the land. Our separation of powers is failing because unelected judges are in desperate need of recall.
[this is good]
I think we need to get on our knees and pray for this country. It's falling fast.
By Dinesh D'Souza

It is the essence of democracy that people should be able to decide the moral rules that govern the nature of a community. If people don't have that power, then they are living under an autocracy.

True, this majority rule is not unlimited. It is limited by what the government has the power to do. Consequently the majority cannot, in general, vote to seize the homes and accumulated savings of rich people. Leaving aside exceptional cases, government cannot mandate how parents how should raise their children. These kinds of power lie outside the scope of government in a free society.

Majority rule is also circumscribed by individual rights. But these are the rights clearly specified in the Constitution. A majority of citizens cannot prevent an individual from voting because voting is a basic right, as is the right to freedom of speech and freedom of religion, and so on. The state is constitutionally prohibited from undermining these enumerated rights.

Now the high court of California has made gay marriage into a right that is immune from restriction by the majority of citizens in the state. We already know what California citizens think about gay marriage: they oppose it. A referendum outlawing gay marriage was passed with the support of the state's voters. More than 60 percent of voters cast their ballots against gay marriage.

How, then, can a court invalidate the referendum and over-rule the will of the people? Basically through a kind of legal fraud. The court has to pretend that there is a right to gay marriage even though it is nowhere evident in the state constitution. Read the constitution, hold it up to the light, squeeze lemon juice on it--you won't see a right to gay marriage in there. It is simply not an enumerated right, nor is it a right that can be clearly derived from other enumerated rights.

In issuing its ruling the California court appealed to the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The basic logic is that gays have a right to be treated like everyone else. But just like everyone else, gays do have the right to marry. They have the right to marry adult members of the opposite sex! What gay activists want is something else: the right to marry members of the same sex. This is not a right currently enjoyed by anyone. What these gay activists seek is not equal treatment but rather to change the definition of marriage.

But states have a legitimate right to define marriage. State legislatures, drawing on tradition and appealing to the values of their constituents, have defined marriage in a very particular way. Marriage requires a) two people who are b) of legal age and c) not closely related to each other who are d) one male and one female. Note that this definition excludes people who want to marry children, or guys who want to marry their sisters, or Muslims who want to take four wives, or that strange guy who wants to marry his dog. Continued...

Dinesh is a treasure to society. His mind is so clear and his arguments so logical yet those who do not want the truth will deny, obfuscate, and mask the truth at every turn because it doesn't justify their desires. Nowhere in history has marriage been redefined from man and woman to man and man or woman and woman even though this practice has been with us from very nearly the beginning.

The time is short. Come Lord Jesus, come.
[this is good]
I don't give a "RATS A$$" what queers to to and with eachother but don't try to tell me that it's the same as what one man and one woman do , get married and have children and raise a normal family !!!
I remember my mother had this list of Communist goals as testified in congress, 40 years ago. No one calls it Communism anymore, but we seem to be marching down the same path. The real author is Satan who has been behind every dictator who opposes freedom of faith around the world. I was a bit alarmed to hear on Fox News an interview with a fellow pastor of Rev Wrights who described the black liberation theology as being rooted in Marxism. If this truly has been an influence in the Democratic candidates' thinking - we should be concerned, and mostly on our knees praying for our country.
My mom also warned us continually about communist goals for our country. It use to terrify me as a child. You are right, it is Satan who is the author and father of every dictator who opposes freedom of faith.
I have just posted on Obama and judging by his associations and at least one overt attempt to install Sharia law in Kenya, I don't think he is Christian at all. I think he had to choose a Christian church if he wanted to climb the political ladders and for twenty years he and his family have been attending the church that most closely fits with Islamic ideals. "Blame everybody else for your problems."
[這個好]
Excellent post and how right this is. The Reds knew they would have to fight this way, and the crazy thing is that it is working.
Politically, the US has a limited choice for president in ’08. A radical leftist, a compulsive liar, or a war hero. Hmmm.
[isto é bom]

"No one calls it Communism anymore, but we seem to be marching down the same path."

As someone who never read this list until today, I am frighten to see how much bs is still being pushed by the left.

Post a comment

Already a Vox member? Sign in

Advertisement

  • Powered by Vox