I caught this morning Pat Buchanan’s most recent commentary on Obama’s hand being forced by Vice President Biden’s most recent “Joe Bomb” on supporting marriage for gay men and women.
Snicker...I really like Joe Biden. He alone in the political world tells it like it is, and for that I admire him. But he doesn’t always turn on the political filter that usually obscures a Washington public appearance in the media.
Personally, I could care less if two dudes want to join together in a partnership. Or two women. That decision is an individual’s choice, although I support the Christian right’s demand to not call it “marriage.” I support a same-sex civil union where both same-sex partners are entitled to the same legal and property protections as a man-woman union. That’s only fair if you are an American citizen.
But we straights get to keep the word “marriage” all to ourselves, because, let’s be honest, a word doesn’t matter when actions are what is demanded. And that is what the gay lobby is missing, because they are completely emotion driven, as opposed to using their rational brains. (Okay, the conservative side is only marginally better, I admit.)
Whatever. Lables are important, but ultimately irrelevant. All the above are secondary considerations, despite what one’s personal proclivities may be. Most people in this nation are incapable of seeing anything beyond their tiny-brained view of their world, which from their simple conclusion ends at the tip of their nose because they’ve never actually grasped the simple truth of their own existence on planet Earth, and this pathetic debate encapsulates that myopic view in totality.
There is something more important going on here with this issue and its manufactured direction.
Buchanan, ever the savvy politial operative who is also an excellent writer, captures what really matters in this battle between recognition of gays and straights to legally sleep with whomever they please and get recognized by society for their decision. And it’s not whether two dudes get to get it on with each other:
How does Obama propose to win this battle?
He has one path to victory — the Supreme Court.
The New York Times, declaring that homosexuals’ right to marry is “too precious and too fragile to be left up to the whim of states and the tearing winds of modern partisan politics,” is looking to the court as the last, best hope to impose same-sex marriage on the nation.
Can’t trust voters, can’t trust elected legislators, can’t trust Congress. Homosexual marriage, says the Times, is too important to be left to democratic decision. The republic must be commanded to accept it by unelected judges who serve for life and against whom the people have no political recourse.
That process of judicial tyranny has begun. A California judge has overturned the decision of California’s voters to ban gay marriage, and his ruling is headed for the high court.
The Supreme Court thus will tell us whether this issue is to be decided democratically by voters and their elected state and federal legislators, or dictatorially by themselves.
Same-sex marriage is ultimately an emotional motivator. Intelligence and rational discourse has nothing to do with it. This is a decision of the heart, not the mind.
Politics, of course, has nothing to do with inteligence and rational discourse. It’s all about power, and the acquisition thereof.
The Socialist Left, recognizing a short-cut to power through the Supremes, is more than happy to use their gullible and wealthy gay constituency to once again attempt to impose their nauseating, foul, unconstitutional agenda upon the rest of us through our respect for the law and courts (and our fear of its absence).
Buchanan’s commentary presents it better than I could on this page. So follow the link and read it for yourself.
Congress-and especially the House–should recognize the opportunity this presents to them to use it as a way of severly curbing the Supreme Court’s power. The majority of Americans back a restriction on same-sex marriage, unfair as that may be. Use this stupid issue to our advantage to roll back the Court’s power–and use this issue to cast that out-of-control body back into its Constitutional prison.
But do I expect John Boehner’s Congress to do this? That would take a recognition of the issue and its natural political reaction and synthesis, and I never saw that prescience when he was Chairman or Majority Leader. He’s too nice of a guy. And none of his staff are that Machievellian, either. The last one in Congress who could grasp this vision was former Speaker Gingrich, and he’s been gone for 14 years. I haven’t seen anyone in the Repbulican House in years who could fill that finely crafted intellectual chair.
The Republic continues its strange journey…