Your (dis)Honor I Object! The Plaintiff is Badgering the Republic!
My hypothesis: If you were able to lock a randomly chosen Iowa State Lawmaker in a padded room, and inject him with a magical truth-serum, here are four things you’d hear, from their lips to your ears, on the conjoined subjects of gay marriage and judicial activism:
1) Those who are in favor of gay “marriage” are heretofore unwilling to pursue their goal of changing the definition through either the legislature or the popular vote, instead, favoring the use of judges who reveal contempt for the constitution by engaging in activism from their bench.
Proof: Homosexuals do this because they know they will lose if they must produce a majority in the court of public opinion, citing California’s recent ban on gay marriage, along with 30 other states and 70 nations of the world. This explains why it is so important for the gay activist to make himself into a “minority” or “race” even if it means dishonestly passing-off “born-gay science” propaganda as truth so as to enable the argument that he should be a “protected class” like Hispanics, Asians, Indians, and Blacks, and, therefore, as the reasoning goes, must be protected from the alleged “tyranny of the majority.” (A majority, in this case, who still believe something’s inappropriate when government forces Chucky Cheese to hire a cross-dresser or a flamboyantly effeminate man to serve birthday cake to your kindergartner at his birthday party.)
2) The unjust judges that gays make use of aren’t afraid to act in contempt of the democratic process, because the lawmakers and/or citizens charged by the constitution with the responsibility to prohibit such acts are too fearful and/or corrupt to use appropriate impeachment proceedings to punish them.
Proof: Judge Jeffrey Neary of Sioux City, who “divorced” lesbians Kimberly and Jennifer without appropriate consequence,[1] and Judge Robert Hansen of Des Moines, whose recent hubris makes even Neary look like a careful adjudicator. [2]
3) Or worse, many lawmakers at the local, state and federal levels, like Iowa House Speaker Pat Murphy,[3] (D-Dubuque) ENCOURAGE our judges to use activism so they won’t have to go on the record with an up or down vote on a contentious issue (current Sioux City council majority notwithstanding).
Proof: Public comments made since August 30, 2007, by Iowa State Democrat lawmakers in response to Judge Hansen’s contempt for respectable jurisprudence.[4]
4) Additionally, those who are in favor of gay marriage prove a willingness to dishonestly and willfully distort the history books, if it is in their political favor to do so.
Proofs: 1) Charles Coulter, an African American copy editor for the Sioux City Journal, claims judicial activism is both good and necessary,[5] after all, it was the catalyst for the freedom to engage in interracial marriage.[6] Yet he fails to mention that, if it had been left up to those same courts a century earlier, the black community at the time of Brown v. Board of Education would have still been enslaved.[7] What’s worse, Mr. Coulter’s example is entirely defective, because at the close of the Civil War, it is a matter of public record that CONGRESS, not the judiciary, passed laws AGAINST segregation, but those laws were “struck-down” in 1857 by an activist court in Plessey v. Ferguson.[8] So when the court finally ended segregation a century later in Brown v. Board of Education,[9] it wasn’t an act of “righteous judicial activism,” as Mr. Coulter implies, asserting itself against an evil majority – forcing the prejudiced masses to properly evolve into a more “progressive” civilization.
It was, in truth, an act of the judiciary correcting its own prior arrogant mismanagement of power with a very appropriate reversal. It is my opinion that copy-editors like Mr. Coulter should handle American history with more professionalism. After all, if one believes they have a valid point to make in favor of Gay marriage, then one should make it in an honest way that isn’t misleading. The fact is, when it comes to judges legislating from the bench, history proves the court’s track-record is a mixed-bag. Due to judicial activism, the courts have been a less than trustworthy custodian of our freedoms.
2) Chuck Swaggerty publishes a letter to the editor on December 31, 2008, in the same Sioux City Journal,[10] and insults many people’s intelligence claiming that the Christians who founded America, more or less, reviled black people, and therefore, as liberal logic goes, modern Christians are haters of certain kinds of people too… just like the founders were? Well! Let us overlook the inconvenient records which reveal slavery was introduced to American colonies nearly two centuries BEFORE the founders were born, much less able to rouse the causes of the revolutionary war. Let us further ignore that a majority of our 200 founding founders HATED slavery, and publicly decried its anti-Christian evil as a significant justification for the Declaration against England’s pro-slavery policies.[11] Finally, we must also ignore that it was primarily the influence of Quakers, Baptists, Presbyterians, and dozens of other Christian groups and organizations that worked in concert with the predominantly Christian founders toward abolition.[12] I digress.
Why do pro-gay activists say such things? How has it become so easy to claim that one who adheres to historical facts, science, faith and reason, are “haters”?[13] These kinds of things are published in a calculated attempt to sell science fiction: that “behavior is equal to race” regardless of the fact that clinical science DOES NOT support “born-gay” propaganda (as popular and convenient as it may be to passionately claim otherwise).[14] Is resistance to the homosexual community primarily sourced by “hateful religious fanatics and right-wing cults” as some claim? No it is not. I would refer proponents of “born-gay science” to the public statement of one of the more respected authorities on the subject, a self-professed “radical lesbian and atheist feminist” who also happens to be a social science professor at the University of the Arts in Philadelphia, Dr. Camille Paglia. Here’s what she had to say about the less than honest public misrepresentations of science by her own gay community:
“[Gay activism], encouraged by the scientific illiteracy of academic postmodernism, wants to deny that there is a heterosexual norm. This is madness!…[eventually] the insulting disrespect shown by gay activists to religion…[will] produce a backlash…History shows that massive spiritual revivals are a fundamental, recurrent element in culture.”[15] (It is my humble opinion that Dr. Paglia may have missed her calling. With a conversion to orthodox Christianity and lifestyle she would have made a great prophetess).
Consider the secular humanist works of Dr. Miron Baron, who published his scientific data in the British Medical Journal back in 1993 after studying the possibility of someone being “born gay.” Dr. Baron writes:
“From an evolutionary perspective, genetically determined (born gay) homosexuality would have become extinct long ago because of reduced reproduction. Thus, the purported linkage (born-gay theories) stand in apparent contradiction to the flimsy genetic and epidemiological evidence…”[16]
Without doubt, Mr. Coulter, The Journal Editorial Board,[17] Swaggerty, Hobart, Rixner, Ferris, and Neary have provided the city of Sioux City and beyond with a less than charming line of arguments in favor of gay marriage. Never mind the consequences to follow if courts eventually decide, in Caesar-like fashion, that suddenly “behavior DOES equal race” (unless we also wish to legalize pedophilic marriage later under the same legal precedent, in which case this decision to elevate behavior to the level of race, will surely be championed as another alleged “victory of the civil rights movement.” Folks, if and when this happens, we can just forget wasting our time having bailiffs bellow, “God save this honorable court!” anymore. Because those of us who have managed to maintain our sanity through these dark times will be far too busy shouting, “God save the children!”
How can this motley crew of pro-gay, tradition-spurning, relig-o-phobic[18] pseudo-humanitarians continue unchecked by society? The answer is found in the relationship between judges, elected officials, voters, and public ignorance. Here’s how: 1) If judges can’t be punished by voters because they aren’t elected officials; 2) If judges know that elected officials won’t impeach them since they are doing a “service” by taking the burden of policy-making from them, especially when making policy is uncomfortable, and to vote in favor of it will bring the wrath of the voters; 3) If elected lawmakers wager they won’t be punished by voters for allowing judicial activism, as they enjoy the safety of public ignorance and voter apathy…then, the usurpers of democratic process may continue un-checked. And who is MOST to blame for this domino-effect of disgrace? To protect the identity of the guilty, let us refer to him as “Citizen Simpleton,” he who noisily woofs, “Fixing them-there pot-holes is what’s most important these-here days!”
In truth, for all those reasons listed above, the judiciary’s impending abuse is encouraged by both Democrats and R.I.N.O’S who are in power at the local, state, and federal levels, even more so by the “anti-pot-hole intelligencia” of our neighborhoods and media editorial boards. To be abundantly clear, whether or not one thinks gay marriage is right or wrong, in this context, isn’t THE point of this article. THE point is that we are teetering on the brink of a defacto change in government – a return to the very kind of tyranny our founders risked their lives to escape. The “Divine Right of Kings” is simply being replaced with a revolting form of oligarchial “Divine Right of Judges.” In the end, the gay activist is not only driven to force a claim upon the sea of public opinion that his behavior is “perfectly moral,” he must now embrace the additional burden of having to convince Americans that usurping the due process of democracy is “morally necessary.” I, for one, firmly believe that both suggestions are as wild as they are untrue.
A wise Thomas Jefferson warned: “[T]o consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy…The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal…Without a looming threat of impeachment] The Constitution…[will be] a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary which they may twist and shape into any form they please” [19] (Emphasis Added). This is precisely where Speaker of the House Pat Murphy and his fellow Democrats have placed the people of Iowa by pretending the Iowa Supreme Court is the “single tribunal of all constitutional questions” – according to Jefferson, they have placed Iowans under the despotism of an oligarchy.
In the end, whether or not gays will succeed in this monumental task is directly linked, in ratio, to the ignorance/intelligence of “We the people.” WE may now soon face yet another consequence of living in a historically illiterate society, and return to the kind of liberty-crushing evil our forefathers narrowly overcame.
To all who ARE literate, history has provided around 4000 years of evidence proving that public policy is BEST DECIDED at the LOCAL LEVEL. Once upon a time, those who paid attention to history knew these kinds of things. We knew that “we the people” couldn’t truly “govern ourselves” from a stuffy room of self-interested bureaucrats somewhere in D.C., nor did we think that “we the people” could maintain our liberties by allowing an arrogant judge to overstep his authority, like his predecessors, when it was still in vogue for such to wear white wigs.
What a paradox we have today, when a mayor of a city so great as ours has the nerve to suggest in public that continuing the time-honored approach of de-centralized government would make he and his councilmen look, as he says, “like a freak show.”[20] With that said, I offer a well-deserved sardonic “thanks” to the Journal editorial board, Mr. Coulter, the two gay men from Sioux City pressing this agenda before the Supreme Court, Hobart, Rixner, Ferris, Neary, and the very dishonorable “Judge” Hanson for our continued degradation as a democratic society. (If our state officials don’t have the integrity to impeach Hanson, then at the very least someone should mail him one of those wigs.)
Unlike some, I do believe in free-speech, and support the right of those who disagree with me to speak as freely as they choose. I further understand that free speech is also enjoyed by those who will revise history, distort facts, hurl unfounded accusations, encourage judicial abuse, desecrate the memory of our founding fathers, deface and attempt to marginalize the present-day value of the Bible, etc. You can define all those things as “free-speech,” and I’ll agree with you up to the point of defamation (which, bye the way, is against the law and unprotected by the first amendment). (Nudge, nudge, wink, wink.) I will even agree that dishonest speech, as shameful as it is, should not be censored. But I’m not willing to accept any of those type things as “professional journalism,” especially at the local level.
Mr. Coulter further claims, “The real basis for the same-sex marriage ban is fear.”[21] That’s a difficult argument to support, unless you qualify this alleged fear with more specificity. Let’s see…Fear of courts basing decisions on science fiction and emotion? Yes. Fear of public ignorance enabling despots in black robes? Yes. Fear that if lies and historical revisionisms are repeated often enough, the public might be duped into believing them? Yes. Fear that when Jesus Christ said every human being would someday answer to the Supreme Judge of all the living and dead? Certainly! But seriously now – fear of gay people? Come on Mr. Coulter, you’re going to have to do better than that.
The culture in which we live and the arguments used by the left to justify their political gymnastics make it very easy for me to imagine Judas Iscariot, with the coin-bag of betrayal in one hand and a noose-tied rope of his own pending destruction in the other, delivering a pious-sounding speech on the importance of fidelity. It is high-time for the public to ask themselves, “Who are the REAL bigots in this argument suffering from a particular “phobia”?
I, for one, am not afraid.
Rev. Cary K. Gordon
[1] “Neary Holds Position as 3rd District Judge,” by Jesse Claeys, Sioux City Journal November 3, 2004
[2] “Judge Rules Gay Couples Can Marry in Iowa,” Associated Press, Fox News, August 31, 2007
[3] “Iowa Moves to Impeach Polk County Judge,” by Charlotte Eby, Journal Des Moines Bureau, January 25, 2008
[4] “Iowa Moves to Impeach Polk County Judge,” by Charlotte Eby, Journal Des Moines Bureau, January 25, 2008
[5] “Hooray for Hollywood er California,” by Charles Coulter, Kansas City Star, May 16, 2008
[6] “A Ban Violates Civil, Basic Human Rights,” by Charles Coulter, Sioux City Journal, December 21, 2008
[7] “Supreme Court of the United States, 60 U.S. 393, Scott v. Sandford, Decided: March 6, 1857, Re-Published by Cornell University Law School: Legal Information Institute, www.law.cornell.edu
[8] “Supreme Court of the United States, 163 U.S. 537, Plessey v. Ferguson, No. 210 Argued: April 18, 1896, Decided: May 18, 1896, Re-Published by Cornell University Law School: Legal Information Institute, www.law.cornell.edu
[9] “Supreme Court of the United States, 347 U.S. 143, Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, No. 1 Argued: December 9, 1952, Re-Argued December 8, 1953, Decided: May 17, 1954
[10] “What is a Traditional Family?” by Chuck Swaggerty, Sioux City Journal Opinions, December 8, 2008
[11] Frank Moore, Materials for History Printed From Original Manuscripts, the Correspondence of Henry Laurens of South Carolina (New York: Zenger Club, 1861), p. 20, to John Laurens on August 14, 1776
John Jay, The Correspondence and Public Papers of John Jay, Henry P. Johnston, editor (New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1891), Vol. III, p. 342, to the English Anti-Slavery Society in June 1788
Thomas Jefferson, The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Albert Ellery Bergh, editor (Washington, DC: Thomas Jefferson Memorial Assoc., 1903), Vol. I, p. 34
[12] “Some Fathers Fought Slavery,” by Walter E. Williams, Creators Syndicate, Inc., May 26, 1993
[13] “Perpetuating Hatred” by Zachary Shultz, Sioux City Journal Opinion, January 7, 2009
[14] “Dr. Kinsey and the Institute for Sex Research,” by Dr. Wardell B. Pomeroy, New York, Harper and Row, 1972
“Human Sexual Orientation: The Biological Theories Reappraised,” by Dr. William Byne and Dr. Bruce Parsons, Archives of General Psychiatry, page 50:235, March 1993
“A Genetic Study of Male Sexual Orientation,” by Dr. J. Michael Bailey and Dr. Richard C. Pillard, Archives of General Psychiatry, page 48:1095, December, 1991
“Sexual Contacts: Experiences and Fantasies of Adult Male Survivors of Child Sexual Abuse,” by James R. Bramblett, Jr. and Carol Anderson Darling, Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy 23 (4):313 Winter 1997
[15] “Ask Camille”, by Dr. Camille Paglia, Salon Question and Answer, posted March 17, 1998. Also see “No Law in the Arena,” by Dr. Camille Paglia, p. 72, Vintage Books, 1994
[16] “Genetic Linkage and Male Homosexual Orientation” by Dr. Miron Baron, British Medical Journal, 307:337, August 7, 1993
[17] “It’s No Business of the City,” Sioux City Journal Editorial Board Opinion, December 14, 2008
[18] “Elderly Prop 8 Supporter roughed-up, Filing Charges” by Allie Martin, OneNewsNow, November 11, 2008
“Thousands Protest Gay Marriage Ban in California,” by Associate Press, Fox News, November 7, 2008
“Radical Homosexuals Plan Day of Intolerance,” by Charlie Butts, OneNewsNow, November 14, 2008
[19]Thomas Jefferson to William C. Jarvis, 1820. ME 15:277
[20] “City Council Tables Gay-Marriage,” by Lyn Zerschling, Sioux City Journal, December 16, 2008
[21] “A Ban Violates Civil, Basic Human Rights,” by Charles Coulter, Sioux City Journal, December 21 2008
