Showing posts with label Same-sex marriage. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Same-sex marriage. Show all posts

Wednesday, October 8, 2014

Utah Needs a Strong Governor

Yesterday’s announcement that the Supreme Court will not hear Utah’s case concerning same-sex unions does not make these unions mandatory. The issue still falls within the reach of Governor Gary Herbert. Despite Judge Shelby’s ruling of December, 2013, marriage is a state matter, not a federal one. Utah spoke on the issue with Amendment Three to the Utah State Constitution, passed in 2004, which defines marriage as between a man and a woman, and our Constitution is not subject to federal judges. We can say “No!”

The federal government has no authority to dictate this matter to us. Judge Shelby broke the law with his ruling in a classic example of illegal legislation from the bench. No judge should be allowed to break the law he took an oath to uphold. He, and other judges doing the same, should be removed from the bench.
We fought this issue by taking it to the highest court, asking that it intervene. They have refused. Now comes the hard part: We must tell the federal court system to “take a hike.” This is our business, not theirs. We could have said so at the time Judge Shelby ruled and then put muscle behind our position. Now we have to.
This issue goes back to the basics: who’s in charge? If the contract Americans signed with government 225 years ago puts the federal government in charge of marriage, Judge Shelby was within his duties. He’s a federal judge; he rules on federal matters.
What rights did we give the federal government? Article 1 of the Constitution spells them out. Minus the details, these are the duties we gave Congress: it is to collect taxes, pay our debts and defense costs, and borrow money. It must regulate immigration, bankruptcies and some commerce. It is to coin money and punish counterfeiters, standardize weights and measures, give us a postal system and grant copyrights. It is responsible for laws and crimes on the high seas, raising a navy and armies, and calling out the militia. It must pass laws to accomplish the above and is in charge of its home, the District of Columbia. In addition, it must establish a federal court system to rule on issues, but only those for which the federal government has authority.
Note that defining marriage was not on the list. Nor is it on the president’s short list: Chief Executive over the people and his branch of government, commander of the military, maker of treaties, chief diplomat for foreign countries, grantor of pardons and one who recommends (but does not lobby for) legislation.
By default, then, the states define marriage. Like a computer system, there’s a default setting in the national Constitution for anything new or unforeseen — the 10th Amendment. It gives any other responsibility to the states.
We’ve ignored this default setting for a century or more, allowing it to be repeatedly overridden. Past politicians and governors knew this would become a serious problem, but ran from their duties to protect a state’s right to make decisions. Now there’s a precedent established: states bellyache, roar, and capitulate. Many, both lawmakers and citizens, no longer realize the power a state has to set its course.
The federal government is daily taking on rights it does not have and authority it does not possess. Their refusal to back Utah’s Amendment Three gives a wink and a nod to judges in other states to follow suit. At some point, the states must stand against this encroachment or we will lose every right we have in local decision-making. It is the nature of power to increase itself until some force stops its momentum. The longer we wait to put the brakes on power grabs, the more force it takes to stop the runaway. We’ve waited too long, already.
Gov. Herbert is not alone in facing this issue. Several other states: Indiana, Oklahoma, Virginia and Wisconsin, share our plight and their governors have the same dilemma. Each must decide what to do. If we don’t stand fast on this issue, our grandchildren lose both the right of every child to a father and mother but also their right to be governed by the rule of law. America stands on majority rule and the majority of Utahns want traditional marriage upheld. If the majority yields to the minority we change our system of government. Rule by the minority always produces tyranny.
As Utahns and citizens of America, we have duties to our government and ourselves. Nothing in life is free — there is a payment due for everything we get. This includes freedom; it isn’t free. Freedom’s duty is to insist on obedience to law and then put power behind our word. To do otherwise gives permission to ignore the law. If we allow federal judges to strike down our Constitution in this matter, what will they strike down next?
It’s a very hard thing for a governor to stand up to the federal establishment. It takes a strong man and he needs the people to stand behind him. The activists destroying the law will be vocal on this, and unless those who want us to be governed by laws we choose speak out, Governor Herbert will think we don’t care.
It’s time to call the governor. Tell him to stand firm for Utah’s constitutional right to draft its laws on marriage and the family. His number is (801) 538-1000; his email is garyherbert@utah.gov. Speak now or you may have to forever hold your peace.
___________________________________________________________________________________

Pamela's new Ebook, "Promises of the Constitution:"  With your purchase, Amazon donates to a most amazing Charity with your purchase (Mentors International. Org). 100% of all donations lift families out of poverty. It is one of the few Charities which uses 100% toward charity!  Go to:
 
http://smile.amazon.com/Promises-Constitution-Yesterday-Today-Tomorrow-ebook/dp/B00LEWCS4E/ref=sr_1_1?s=digital-text&ie=UTF8&qid=1410824095&sr=1-1&keywords=promises+of+the+constitution

Sunday, February 9, 2014

Get it Right: Nature says so vs. “We say so”

Our state legislature is now in session, with 500-plus new bills under consideration. What will they pass, and how many of them do we actually need?
We are awash in laws. Every excursion from home crosses hundreds of them. While many are well-intentioned, others are inane. Law figures prominently into two current issues: the clash on same-sex marriage and so-called anti-discrimination legislation.
Not all "law" is logical or good. Some laws are obvious; they defy argument because everyone accepts them as wise and necessary. Others are arbitrarily forced on us by authorities that demand obedience "because we say so."
Natural laws deal with what is true in any timeframe, circumstance and culture. They condemn actions such as theft, murder and rape. Logic and reason tell every culture that these things are wrong. Natural laws give us freedom by telling us what is universally unacceptable. We then have liberty in all else, providing we do not infringe on the rights of others. Serious consequences result if natural laws are violated.
Natural laws apply to everyone; their built-in supremacy clause trumps all man-made laws.
Prominent Founder James Wilson explained, "The Law of Nature is immutable ... because it has its foundation in the natural constitution and mutual relations of men and things."
These moral forces are the "self-evident truths" Thomas Jefferson recorded in the Declaration of Independence.
Natural laws are as old as time. The great Roman statesman, Cicero, circa 100 BC, explained: "True law is right reason in agreement with nature ... it is of universal application ... [and] is impossible to abolish."
John Locke, whose "Second Treatise of Government" has inspired freedom planners for ages, taught natural law as the foundation of universal morality. Through the centuries, other great minds -- Aquinas in Italy, Grotius in Holland, Suarez in Spain, Hobbes in England--have agreed.
The opposite of natural law is posit law, written by governments because they want to, and presented as arbitrary. Examples include zoning requirements, license laws and property controls. These laws assume we are incompetent, and they stem from man-made authority that requires obedience.
While natural law gets its authority from God, posit law is backed by force and threatened punishment. Natural laws freely invite acceptance and practice; posit laws need a bureaucracy for enforcement.
Natural law is self-limiting, while posit law usurps and is greedy: the more it has, the more it wants. Posit laws may ignore reason; natural laws cannot. They can criminalize what is not criminal, condemn what may not deserve condemnation, and regulate by requiring government permission to proceed.
While posit law is not always bad, it can be unnecessary, costly, burdensome and frustrating. Carry it too far and you dance with Lenin's definition of communism: "[P]ower based upon force and limited to nothing, by no kind of law and absolutely no set rule."
These two forms of law surround both same-sex marriage and anti-discrimination legislation, which forces our property use and business practices. Both practices violate natural law; both are enveloped by posit law. Heterosexual marriage -- the marriage of natural law -- has been practiced by every culture, in every timeframe and in every national circumstance. If not so, we would not have survived, as heterosexual unions are mandatory to continue every animal species.
Heterosexuality is the pattern for our planet. Also inherent in natural law are the rights violated by anti-discrimination legislation: the freedom to express ourselves, believe what we choose, determine with whom we will and will not do business and how we will control our property.
Only posit law forces unnatural regulations and relationships on society and demands that we service them. Natural laws -- laws that are "right reason in agreement with nature" -- prevent harm; they do not cause it by forcing acceptance and association. There are some things that cannot yield to posit law. Our lawmakers need to know that the two above mentioned items are among them. Please tell them so.