Tuesday, June 06, 2006

Senator Blanche Lincoln: Deceptive or Shockingly Ignorant?

Here is Senator Blanche Lincoln's statement on why she opposes a Federal Marriage Amendment:

"I support the current federal law that grants states the right not to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states."

I cannot look into her heart to determine whether she is being dishonest or is simply grossly ignorant of recent U.S. History when she makes such statements, but IMHO it can only be one or the other.

Her position that a federal LAW is enough is appallingly ignorant of the last fifty years of judicial activism in this country. Judges toss out federal laws all the time based on newly-created pseudo-rights that went undiscovered in the text of the Constitution for more than a century until they somehow concocted them. Activist Judges in state courts have already done exactly that on homosexual marriage.

She seems oblivious to the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the U.S. Constitution, which reads, "Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records and judicial proceedings of every other stateā€¦The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states." Even a strict-contructionist judge could understand that to mean that the so-called "gay-marriages" from Massachusetts must be accepted as legal marriages when they come to Arkansas.

This will mean that not one law must change, but thousands. See the article a couple down from this one where it is shown that once homosexual marriage becomes a "civil rights" issue we will lose our power to dissent. The full force of the federal government will be dedicated to pushing out all persons or groups who oppose "civil rights" from a wide array of government access,contracts, benefits, and programs.

Only a clear amendment to the Federal Constitution that explictly says that "only marriages between a man and a woman need be recognized as legal" can prevent judicial tyrants from imposing not just Gay Marriage, but Gay America ; for all our laws and institutions would be altered to accommodate this new "civil right".

Blanche Lincoln is wrong, and a person in her position ought to know it. The other alternative is a dark one. That is that she WANTS the judicial tyrants to do their work, that she is actually in favor of re-defining marriage but dare not say so openly. Rather, by failing to protect marriage with this amendment, she will leave the door open for the judicial tyrants to sneak in and do their dirty work against the will of the people.


Anonymous KenH said...

I don't think that we should try to make social policy by amending the federal constitution. The other time that was tried - prohibition - the amendment was such a debacle that it had to be repealed.

7:15 PM, June 08, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I agree with Ken's sentiment expressed above- but that is not what an amendment like I am suggesting will do. Rather, leaving things as they are will give activist judges an opportunity to do exactly what Ken and I don't want to see. An amendment which makes clear that this matter is left to each state to make its own decision is the exact opposite of a prohibition which takes the decision out of every state's hands.

4:25 AM, August 01, 2014  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home