Tuesday, May 20, 2008

Tar, Feathers a Rail and a little Second Amendment

Chief Justice Ronald M. George

Chief Justice Ronald M. George’s majority opinion is as arrogant as it is confused.

Never mind that, as his opinion concedes, “[f]rom the beginning of California statehood, the legal institution of marriage has been understood to refer to a relationship between a man and a woman.” Never mind that the very right to marry that he so wildly misconstrues is built on that understanding.

Never mind that California voters in 2000 overwhelmingly ratified that understanding by adopting by initiative — by a 61.4-percent majority — the California Defense of Marriage Act.

As associate justice Marvin R. Baxter aptly stated in dissent, “Nothing in our Constitution, express or implicit, compels the majority’s startling conclusion that the age-old understanding of marriage — an understanding recently confirmed by an initiative law — is no longer valid. California statutes already recognize same-sex unions and grant them all the substantive legal rights this state can bestow.

If there is to be a further sea change in the social and legal understanding of marriage itself, that evolution should occur by similar democratic means.”
Editors, National Review Online

In a more sensible time when morals where not confused and men where men and women were women if such a court would have made the ruling as the one hailed in California by it’s Supreme Court each justice would have been tarred, feathered and ran out of town on a rail. Ah the good ol’ days!

But alas today we allow judges to play legal jujitsu with the law we allow our politicians to fornicate in the oval office of the White house and afterwards blame the vast right wing conspiracy for their impeachment ills and finally we allow presidential hopefuls to spin yawns about danger, intrigue and qualifications without even just one little boy exclaiming, “But he (or she) has on no clothes, the Emperor has on no clothes!”

We are indeed a confused people, not knowing right from wrong or light from darkness we just allowed four California Justices to use invisible tread and invisible looms to manufacture the finest whole cloth that the People of California would ever want to wear.

Homosexual marriage.

California schools will be all the fashion as the K through 12 children will be fitted with the latest Heather has two mommies or the immortal and immoral “the tale of two Princes” the homosexual love story for Kindergarteners and 1st grade students that made its debut in the state of Massachusetts the only other state that sanctions legalized homosexuality.

Massachusetts parents attempted to complain that homosexuality was being forced on their little innocence 5 year-olds they even filed law suits but alas the Massachusetts Courts threw out their cases because after all homosexuality is the law! Isn’t there something weird here? A case can be thrown out because homosexuality is the law and when homosexuality isn’t the law the law can be thrown out. Hum?

I think Thomas Jefferson understood the tyranny that dwells in the hearts of men best when writing an amendment concerning religion for the state of Virginia Constitution Jefferson’s concern was that Judges would substitute their opinions for law which would cause them to override the People’s liberty by rule of their personal preferences, opinions and prejudges.

That is exactly what has happened in the state of California. Four Justices have negated the vote of millions of Californians, 61% of the vote on the 2000 proposition 22, to exact their opinions as the rule of judgment.

[T]he opinions of men are not the object of civil government, nor under its jurisdiction; that to suffer the civil magistrate to intrude his powers into the field of opinion and to restrain the profession or propagation of principles on supposition of their ill tendency is a dangerous fallacy, which at once destroys all religious liberty, because he being of course judge of that tendency will make his opinions the rule of judgment, and approve or condemn the sentiments of others only as they shall square with or differ from his own; that it is time enough for the rightful purposes of civil government for its officers to interfere when principles break out into overt acts against peace and good order; and finally, that truth is great and will prevail if left to herself; that she is the proper and sufficient antagonist to error, and has nothing to fear from the conflict unless by human interposition disarmed of her natural weapons, free argument and debate; errors ceasing to be dangerous when it is permitted freely to contradict them. —Thomas Jefferson, Bill Establishing Religious Freedom in the State of Virginia, 1786
What is Political Correctness if it isn’t the opinions of men and women? Four California Supreme Court Justices; Ronald M. George, Carlos R. Moreno, Kathryn Mickle Werdegar and Joyce Kennard were persuaded by politically correct arguments that had no basis in law, particularly California constitutional law yet these legal tailors thought that they could fool the whole village of California by weaving invisible cloth and calling it the right to gay marriage.

The California Court’s ruling on marriage has disenfranchised tens of millions of Californians of their civil rights. These millions of Californians were denied their right to vote by California Supreme Court Justices; Ronald M. George, Carlos R. Moreno, Kathryn Mickle Werdegar and Joyce Kennard. These Justices have violated the very laws that they have sworn to uphold.

Its Government officials like these that the founding fathers wrote the second amendment for.

It was always the founder’s idea that if government ever usurped the will of the People or oppress the people through tyrannous acts that government should be rebelled against.

Most of us have forgotten that our history is a country birth out of rebellion. The Constitution was written so that never would the People be put under the edict or the rule of Kings or dictators ever again.

California’s Supreme Court has taken the misguided steps toward oligarchy by placing the opinion of four Justices above the Constitution and above the People.

I think such an act should prompt us to remember what the second amendment of the Constitution is really about.
Assessment of the accuracy of Second Amendment interpretation requires an understanding of the specific political situation of the time. Early America thrived on a long history of independence and rejection of centralized governmental authority, particularly when that authority was perceived as abusive or out of touch with the people.

The early American statesmen inherited a rich history of autonomy and suspicion of centralized power. It was this suspicion that motivated the introduction and ratification of the Bill of Rights, designed to protect the people from federal abuse.

There is a second, more radical sense in which the Second Amendment was intended to prevent governmental tyranny, however. Early American leaders believed that an armed populace would serve as a strong deterrent to any sort of governmental abuse. “Although the proposed Constitution offered sufficient guarantees against despotism by its checks and balances,” Vandercoy remarks, “the real deterrent to governmental abuse was the armed population.”[8]

The Framers, with Locke, believed that unchecked by the salubrious fear of its armed populace, government will follow its natural tendency to despotism.”[9] In the presence of an armed populace, however, government will be dissuaded from violative policies. As James Burgh said, There is no end to observations on the difference between the measures likely to be pursued by a minister backed by a standing army, and those of a court awed by the fear of an armed people.[10] Thus, the Second Amendment was intended as a deterrent to federal abuse of power.
--The Rebirth of Freedom Foundation

If every citizen was armed, the Founders reasoned, it then would be a relatively easy task to form them into a militia should the need for the states to protect themselves from tyrannical overlords become necessary.Bryan Fischer
Tar, Feathers a rail and a little Second Amendment is what is needed to stop this lurch toward activist Courts and tyrannous Government.

Americans should be up in arms against anyone or any entity that would take away the rights of the people and California’s Supreme Court ruling to overthrow the People’s vote must not be allowed to stand.


  1. Anonymous6:46 AM

    It's a crying dirty shame to see the Second Ammendment being so watered so. It's impact upon Holy Matrimony is not lost on me. Were it not for the Right to Bear Arms, the Institute of Holy Matrimony could not be enforced by means of the Shotgun Wedding. I honestly can't think of any real reason to get married other than the coercion of a Shotgun Wedding.

    Were it not by the caliburs in my Father-in-Law's Shotgun, I don't think that I would have ever married Naggums. My Sugarpie can nag so badly that the dog digs holes to bury his head when she starts. Talk about a temper, it would shatter mountains of steel.

    Love is a many splendored thing. If you tamper with the Second Ammendment, guys like me who miss their bachelorhood will fly the coop.

    Women were the Smarter Sex, inventing Holy Matrimony to impose Bondage upon Men. The wiggle their tails and show their cleavage and Men's brains turn to jelly. All a Woman need do is to unsheath her best best weapons, that sheath being called a bra, and guys loose their brains. After Wedding Bells, guys slowly regain their sanity. Shotguns are used to persuade guys who recover their sanity too quickly.

    As goes the Second Ammendment, so goes Holy Hatrimony!

    Happy Mother's Day!

  2. Such a fine example of, "It’s better to remain silent than to remove all doubt!"

    Eventus stultorum magister Anon!

  3. Anonymous10:21 AM

    Orator amo a Verus Vetus Virgo!

  4. Inops, potentem dum imitaratur, perit.

  5. Anonymous3:16 PM

    O Great Alaphiah!

    If I am such a Fool and if you are such a Great Orwellian Scholar, then answer me this:

    Have you reas Keep the Aspidistra Flying, George Orwell's forerunner nvel to 1984? As you may recall, George Orwell is the master of the Unhappy Ending, where the protaagonist faces the ultimate defeat. Winston Smith is vaporized by a power-mad government in 1984.

    In Keep the Aspidistra Flying, Gordon Comstock, forerummer of Winston Smith, succumbs to the ultimate Fate Worse than Death. Are not my facts about Holy Matrimony borne out by Keep the Aspidistra Flying?

    Just how many of Orwell's books have you read? I have read 1984, Animal Farm, Burmese Days, Keep the Aspidistra Flying, A Clergyman's Daughter, Shooting an Elephant, and Homage to Catalona. I estimate that I have read five more Orwellian novels than you.

    I feel that I have been truer to the spirit of Orwellianism in this thread than you. Am I really a fool?

    Were it not for the Second Ammendment to enforce it, Holy Matimony would be obsolete.

  6. You said, "In Keep the Aspidistra Flying, Gordon Comstock, forerummer of Winston Smith, succumbs to the ultimate Fate Worse than Death. Are not my facts about Holy Matrimony borne out by Keep the Aspidistra Flying?"

    I don't believe that you've read "Keep the Aspidistra Flying" had you, you would not have equated Gordon Comstock with Winston Smith and unless you are against a man taking responsiblity for his wife and child I don't see how you consider Gordon Comstock succombing to a fate worst than death.

    You are really becoming a bore with your pretense to knowledge and your oneupmanship!

    You'll have to do better because I find your entertaimment value deceasing daily.

    You're lucky that I've been as longsuffering but I'm not going to suffer your petulance much longer.

  7. Anonymous5:41 PM


    You finally connected the Orwellian Dots! While I do like to tease women about shotguns in relation to marriage, and listen to them squawk about the benifits of matrimony, and that most men do it willingly, deep down, I'm a romantic.

    Let us not lose sight of what Marrige is really about. It is to provide a protective environment for children (and even spouses when they becone ill). It is companionship and bonding. It is child-centered, which Gay Mariage is not.

    Orwell knew what he was doing in that novel. Though a Socialist, he was quick to abandon Free Love in the 30s, just as the Communists did.

    Someone needs to remember her theme. I do tease a little hard, but you know I mean well.

    PS, I prefer Chinese to Latin. Ni zhi tao ma?