Skip to main content

Whaaah. Take Your Marbles and Go Home.

Well it looks like some people in California think that if their precious sacred sacrosanct holy transcendent building block of earthly existence (doled out by your local county clerk, mind you) has to be extended equally, at law, to others not of their narrow mind they would rather see no one have it.

I say, Amen!

From the Bay area comes word that two California counties with so-called "conservative" (i.e. not really conservative but rather "dominantly religious socialist") populations, will not perform any marriages for anyone, in order to disallow any non-heterosexual citizens from becoming legally joined. Nice to know all these "conservatives" respect the rule of law. (Another giveaway that they are not really conservatives at all, but narrow social collectivist bullies).

Of course, they are not honest about their prejudice, rather saying there aren't enough marriage licenses to go around, or at least resources to handle the additional workload (amazing how socialists always have a government resource answer for whatever their agenda be, left or right).

Officials in Kern and Butte counties cited budget and staffing constraints as the rationale for halting the ceremonies. But clerks in other counties say that claim is specious. Some activists went further, arguing that the decision to stop the ceremonies amounts to poorly disguised discrimination against gay and lesbian couples.

Gee, for counties with "conservative populations" they sure must have boatloads of non-heterosexual would-be marrieds waiting in the wings. Imagine the sustained onslaught.

My view : get marriage out of government and get government out of marriage. Nothing could more defile a "sacred" institution than getting it mixed up with government bureaucracy and the legal system. Anyone who truly views marriage as sacred, especially a so-called "conservative", would want government nowhere near it.

Truth is they aren't "conservatives", at least in any rational, intellectual, or philosophical sense. Reactionaries? Yes. Religious socialists? Definitely. Let's call a spade a spade. Anyone who wants government to enforce their own narrow personal beliefs regarding personal lives of others, to socialize everyone to their viewpoint at the expense of equal protection and due process, is a socialist.

I don't mean a garden political variety socialist - those who want government to have economic control of everyone and everything from cradle to grave, offensive as they are. No, these are more insidious socialists, of the "national socialist" variety, who would have government blatantly discriminate against and dehumanize people not fitting their primitive clannish and (thankfully) increasingly-minority world views.

Our country last tolerated such majoritarian abuses of power and denials of civil rights in the old south...it was called segregation and it was a thoroughly-corrupt vestige of the outright subjugation that preceded it. It found its last odious ditch in the "separate but equal" ruse to legitimize institutionalized bigotry.


My advice : If you want a holy bond, find a church that will have you. If you want a religious union, find a religious temple.

My warning : stop trying to bastardize the "temple" of secular enlightened self-government to enforce your ancient and savage prejudices. There will be equal justice for all, whether or not your personal views can abide it.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The Obligatory Libertarian Tax Day Post

The most disturbing factoid that I learned on Tax Day was that the average American must now spend a full twenty-four hours filling out tax forms. That's three work days. Or, think of it this way: if you had to put in two hours per night after dinner to finish your taxes, that's two weeks (with Sundays off). I saw a talking head economics professor on some Philly TV channel pontificating about how Americans procrastinate. He was laughing. The IRS guy they interviewed actually said, "Tick, tick, tick." You have to wonder if Governor Ruth Ann Minner and her cohorts put in twenty-four hours pondering whether or not to give Kraft Foods $708,000 of our State taxes while demanding that school districts return $8-10 million each?

New Warfare: I started my posts with a discussion.....

.....on Unrestricted warfare . The US Air force Institute for National Security Studies have developed a reasonable systems approach to deter non-state violent actors who they label as NSVA's. It is an exceptionally important report if we want to deter violent extremism and other potential violent actors that could threaten this nation and its security. It is THE report our political officials should be listening to to shape policy so that we do not become excessive in using force against those who do not agree with policy and dispute it with reason and normal non-violent civil disobedience. This report, should be carefully read by everyone really concerned with protecting civil liberties while deterring violent terrorism and I recommend if you are a professional you send your recommendations via e-mail at the link above so that either 1.) additional safeguards to civil liberties are included, or 2.) additional viable strategies can be used. Finally, one can only hope that politici

More of This, Please

Or perhaps I should say, "Less of this one, please." Or how about just, "None of them. Ever again. Please....For the Love of God." Sunshine State Poll: Grayson In Trouble The latest Sunshine State/VSS poll shows controversial Democratic incumbent Alan Grayson trailing former state Senator Dan Webster by seven points, 43 percent to 36 percent. A majority of respondents -- 51 percent -- disapprove of the job that Grayson is doing. Independents have an unfavorable view of him as well, by a 36/47 margin. Grayson has ignored the conventional wisdom that a freshman should be a quiet member who carefully tends to the home fires. The latest controversy involves his " Taliban Dan " advertisement, where he explicitly compares his opponent to the Taliban, and shows a clip of Webster paraphrasing Ephesians 5:22 -- "wives, submit to your husbands." An unedited version of the clip shows that Webster was actually suggesting that husba