Tit for Tat on Preferered Legislation

If liberals can refuse to defend laws that they don’t like, then conservatives can refuse to fund those that they deem undesirable. 

As most who follow politics well know, on the issue of marriage, twice recently, liberals refused to honor the law when it comes to marriage. Of course, as we also know, such efforts were successful.

Particularly troubling was the case involving California’s Proposition 8. Because the state of California refused to defend Prop 8 in court, it was left up to plaintiffs without legal “standing” to do so. Because of this lack of “standing” (the plaintiffs didn't have the right to be a party to the case because they hadn't suffered any specific harm) in federal court, the U.S. Supreme Court dismissed the case and directed the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to vacate their decision in the matter.

This in effect upheld the district courts decision to strike down Prop 8. Since the state of California still refuses to defend what was passed by their citizens, same-sex marriages were allowed to resume in California. In other words, California officials scanned the political landscape and deemed it now safe to simply ignore the law.

Other states are taking notice. Earlier this month, the Attorney General of the state of Pennsylvania, Kathleen Kane, announced that her office would not defend her state’s ban (since 1996) on recognizing same-sex marriages.

Liberals across the country seem to be perfectly content with this approach. However, they will howl like rabid dogs whenever it is proposed that the House GOP may consider a similar approach when it comes to funding Obamacare. As some conservative pundits have recently noted, most notably Rush Limbaugh, there are republicans that are also balking at the proposition of not funding Obamacare.

As Heritage Action for America has noted, “The most viable approach to stop the implementation of Obamacare is a complete and total defunding of the law by Congress. Fortunately, Rep. Tom Graves (R-GA) [my representative until the recent redistricting] and Sen. Cruz have introduced the Defund Obamacare Act of 2013.”

As Heritage has also noted, once Obamacare is fully implemented, the politics of this debate will change. Open enrollment begins October 1, 2013 with the massive subsidies beginning on January 1, 2014. As Heritage also notes, without the legislation mentioned above, the next best opportunity to defund Obamacare comes this September when Congress must pass the Continuing Resolution (CR) to fund the federal government.

Senator Cruz and other senators, along with a growing number of Representatives, have pledged not to vote for a CR that funds any part of Obamacare. This is a political fight that conservatives can win. Obamacare is more unpopular than same-sex marriage is popular. Some members of the GOP need to be reminded that defeating Obamacare was the biggest reason most of them were elected to Congress.

(See this column on American Thinker.)

Copyright 2013, Trevor Grant Thomas

At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason

Trevor and his wife Michelle are the authors of: Debt Free Living in a Debt Filled World

tthomas@trevorgrantthomas.com

Obama Helps Pass Prop 8

Oh, the irony. With Barack Obama on the ballot, liberals thought they couldn’t lose. However, in California things did not go as planned. Much of the country was watching as Californians had on their ballot Proposition 8, which, if passed, would amend their state constitution to read, “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.” The measure passed 52% to 48%.

The thick irony here is that, according to Colby Cash on nationalpost.com, “traditionalist churches needed help to pass Proposition 8—and that help came from black voters brought to the polls by Barack Obama. The measure lost outright among white and Asian voters; it won by more than two to one among blacks, who mostly belong to deeply conservative evangelical churches and who turned out on Nov. 4 in unprecedented numbers.” The measure was also supported by a majority (53%) of Hispanic voters.

I seriously question how “conservative” and “evangelical” any voting group is that overwhelmingly supports the ultra-liberal Barack Obama, especially given his abortion record. Further irony in this vote is that Obama himself came out against Proposition 8. In July of this year, in a letter to the Alice B. Toklas LGBT Democratic Club, Obama wrote that he supports extending “fully equal rights and benefits to same-sex couples under both state and federal law…And that is why I oppose the divisive and discriminatory efforts to amend the California Constitution, and similar efforts to amend the U.S. Constitution or those of other states.”

The California vote just goes to show how unacceptable to Americans in general that gay marriage is. If it cannot pass in California it is unlikely to pass in any other U.S. State. The only way for the gay-marriage lobby to get its way is through judicial activism, with the state of Connecticut as the most recent example. With a 4 to 3 ruling on October 10 of this year, the Connecticut Supreme Court declared that same-sex couples have a right to wed rather than engage in “civil unions.”

The gay-marriage lobby is now zero-for-thirty in their attempts to stop the citizens in U.S. states from passing constitutional amendments strictly defining marriage as the union between one man and one woman. Arizona andFlorida also passed similar measures in this election. A thirty-game losing streak is a pretty abysmal record, but gay marriage supporters are not giving up. True to their form, they are suing to block the amendment passed inCalifornia.

Proposition 8 was in response to the 4 to 3 decision by the California Supreme Court ruling in May of this year that struck down the state’s ban on same-sex marriage. In 2000, 61% of California voters passed the ban (Proposition 22) which said, “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid and recognized in California.” Sadly, it must have been lost on most California voters, as well as voters across the country, that Obama would most likely appoint judges to the federal courts who see things much as the California and Connecticut courts did.

One thing that now must be decided is what to do about the 17,000 or so homosexual “marriages” that took place in between the California Supreme Court ruling and the passing of Proposition 8. Whether these “marriages” will be invalidated remains to be seen. Several states (at least 10) were leery of this scenario and cautioned the California court to delay finalizing its ruling until after the vote on Proposition 8. Of course, the California court in its “enlightened” wisdom refused to do so and now they have a legal mess on their hands, which they richly deserve.

Citizens across the country must keep a wary eye on the judiciary at the local, state, and federal levels. We must never forget that all branches of our wonderful government are ultimately accountable to “we the people.” However, foolish overreaching and “interpreting” by the courts can take years, even decades, to undo. Americans must understand the process by which judges make it to the bench and always keep this in mind as we elect our leaders.

Copyright 2008, Trevor Grant Thomas
At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason.
Trevor and his wife Michelle are the authors of: Debt Free Living in a Debt Filled World
tthomas@trevorgrantthomas.com