by Will Grigg
Two days ago, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a provision of the Voting Rights Act requiring federal supervision of local elections in some southern states. Because it was seen as outdated and unnecessary, that provision was considered an unwarranted intrusion by the Feds in an area of state responsibility. That ruling prompted universal lamentation and outrage on the Left.
This morning, the same Supreme Court struck down the federal Defense of Marriage Act, which prohibited states from recognizing the novel social arrangement called ?same-sex marriage.? As a result, the same Leftists who assailed the Court as a citadel of oppression are now celebrating it as the vanguard of progress.
Marriage is a covenantal institution, rather than a political artifact. The Feds have no authority to define it, any more than a government can decree that a triangle can have four sides or be round.
Whiplash is an affliction to which statists must be uniquely susceptible. For people of that persuasion, the only moral absolute is the belief that the State is the ultimate arbiter of all truth. This is why their moods will oscillate wildly from one day to the next, depending on whether or not a government institution has validated their political prejudices and granted a temporary victory to their faction.
(function(d, s, id) {var js, fjs = d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];if (d.getElementById(id)) return;js = d.createElement(s); js.id = id;js.src = "//connect.facebook.net/en_US/all.js#xfbml=1";fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js, fjs);}(document, 'script', 'facebook-jssdk'));
Latest Commentary
- How Thieves and Terrorists "Apologize" to their Victims
- The True Cycle of Violence
- Will They Assassinate Snowden?
- The Trick is to Suspend the Constitution Without Admitting It
- Snowden's Flight to Freedom
- Freedom versus The National-Security State
- The Land of the Blind: The Illusion of Freedom in America
- Why People Tolerate a Total State
Sorry Mr. Grigg, but the institution of marriage pre-dates any convenantal artifice: It is not, and never has been, an institution defined solely in religious terms having originated in pre-Judaeo-Christian contexts. That marraige was subsequently re-defined as requiring ordination and sacralisation by temporal religious authorities merely denotes an arbitrariness in its specificity.
Marriage was first conceived as a contract of sale; then defined as a religious rite; and subsequently redefined in the era of the nation-state as a legally-binding and state-sanctioned institution homologous of contact law (even if churches retained the "authority" to ordain religious marriage ceremonies as sacred and holy vessels for the transmission of the word of whichever god save all the rest). Hence, this "convenantal institution" is an inherently political artifact, having been continuously redefined over time as societal needs and values have progressed. The issue of LGBT marriage equality should transcend the conflicting values inherent in the left-right division purely on grounds of constitutionality and the respect for the constitutionally protected liberties of the individual, and it is this that the US Supreme Court has affirmed: They should be, and rightfully are, being applauded for having come to this majority decision. (Upholding the constitution is something conservatives usually clamour for, so their inconsistency on the grounds of LGBT marriage equality is duly noted).
In characterising this as an example of left-wing (if such a thing truly exists anymore; I have my doubts) oscillations of mood, and/or some Statist impulse, is grossly misleading. The Supreme Court is an institution of state, true, but it is not coterminous with the State: Its political and constitutional independence guarantees this. Your retrograde attempt to assert a simplistic assault upon the perceptions and values of "Leftists" on the grounds that such individuals cling to a misplaced notion that the State is the final arbiter of truth is a non sequitur: If it were, what need for the US Suprem Court? Similarly, the accusation is misplaced since conservatives share a similar affliction: National Security and an excessive attachment to a radical nationalism expressed via an ugly militarism.
Thank you for sharing your opinion, but on this, you are mistaken.
Sincerely,
A Rational-Humanist.
..."Marriage was first conceived as a contract of sale; then defined as a religious rite; and subsequently redefined in the era of the nation-state as a legally-binding and state-sanctioned institution homologous of contract law (even if churches retained the "authority" to ordain religious marriage ceremonies as sacred and holy vessels for the transmission of the word of whichever god save all the rest)"...
Edited.
..."In characterising this as an example of left-wing (if such a thing truly exists anymore; I have my doubts) oscillations of mood, and/or some Statist impulse, is grossly misleading. The Supreme Court is an institution of state, true, but it is not coterminous with the State: Its political and constitutional independence guarantees this. Your retrograde attempt to assert a simplistic assault upon the perceptions and values of "Leftists" on the grounds that such individuals cling to a misplaced notion that the State is the final arbiter of truth is a non sequitur: If it were, what need for the US Supreme Court? Similarly, the accusation is misplaced since conservatives share a similar affliction: National Security and an excessive attachment to a radical nationalism expressed via an ugly militarism"...
Second edit.
Point well made Mr. Grigg. The government interjecting itself in every aspect of our lives doesn't improve anything. The agendas to be promoted and the direction of the political winds constantly changing ensures inconsistencies in the policies emanating from Washington and the lesser overlords.Twisting definitions of words and state promotion of particular behaviors doesn't necessarily make something healthy or right. God's nature demonstrates it takes a male and female to procreate. Marriage is an institution established by God. People clamor for a king. They are free to cede their rights to the state if they choose, even having the state condone their affiliation between themselves and whatever object of their desire.
Whenever government decides it is their duty to define marriage as anything other than the union of a man and woman, it is in err. They can shout and fine and jail people as they are able but they cannot make an erroneous decree right and they cannot negate the righteous authority of God. Marriage is under attack, and they don't even bother hiding it anymore The government continues to practice age-based discrimination when it comes to marriage and sex. Stupid fucks.
I was told, by a network node (nonetheless) that it was the "Puritains," which handed over the RELIGIOUS doctrine, that is "marriage," to the State's descretion. Am I , (not to be confused with: "I Am"), the only one who sees the contradiction in this? (Puritans murdered a lot of Mormons, did they not? Where T F was Romney then?)
Red and white = pink; doesn't take a M)aster M)ind to piece the puzzle together. The "blue" is the key / has the key. Though, the (somewhat), people who want control, don't want the sheep to start thinking objectively / logically; stars could make that happen. I wonder... The ram, the one mentioned in the bible-tale... Wasn't there a star constellation that resembled it?
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which in some cases has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such material is made available for the purposes of news reporting, education, research, comment, and criticism, which constitutes a 'fair use' of such copyrighted material in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. It is our policy to respond to notices of alleged infringement that comply with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (found at the U.S. Copyright Office) and other applicable intellectual property laws. It is our policy to remove material from public view that we believe in good faith to be copyrighted material that has been illegally copied and distributed by any of our members or users.
About Us - Disclaimer - Privacy Policy
