Don's Tuesday column

           THE WAY I SEE IT   by Don Polson  Red Bluff Daily News   8/27/2013

Same Sex CIWYWBINM; free expression?

The Tea Party Patriots will host 3^rd Assembly District candidate, James Gallagher; the other candidate, Ryan Schohr, took the stage over a month ago. Both men are running as conservative Republicans with strong local roots, impressive resumes and a multitude of endorsements. One of them will be your next Assemblyman; this district will not be sending a Democrat to Sacramento.

So, we had a Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) decision that had Democrat office-holders from the Governor on down saying to the voters of California: Go pound sand if you think you have the temerity to want to enshrine traditional, one man-one woman marriage in California’s Constitution. Our state Constitution gave voters that right; the approval of Proposition 8 was, as the Supreme Court held, not reviewable by federal appeals courts. That left intact a lower district court ruling that should also have been vacated, as the voters cannot be negated when amending our California Constitution. It trumps all and is exempted from higher review (in my understanding).

Technically, the district court’s decision has no binding authority outside the Southern California district over which the judge presides; other counties, including Tehama, have no legal obligation to abide by the ruling invalidating Prop 8. We voted about 3 to 1 for Prop 8 and our Clerk-Recorder should respect our votes and issue no marriage licenses, nor change the verbiage on existing ones, for same sex couples.

Columnist James A. Wilson, a man of God and author of religious-themed books and blog postings, provided a well-written piece on the complexities of the SCOTUS rulings on the Defense of Marriage Act and Prop 8, prompting a writer’s ridicule and criticism. Such writers are often driven by hate; you’ve read their vitriol and anathema for Christians, Mormons and conservatives on this issue. I’ve not seen any similar anger directed at African-American churches, which provided the deciding votes to approve Prop 8. Hmmm. Selective haters, I guess.

California voters gave about the same level of support for Prop 8 that America gave to President Obama in both of his elections (higher than Obama’s win last November); we’ve all been lectured on how resoundingly the voters decided those elections. My opinion as a free citizen and writer is that I place the final word and credibility on marriage in the decision of voters: Marriage is the union of one man and one woman—always has been and always will be, period, full stop.

You “same-sex-marriage” advocates are free to qualify your own proposition and let us vote on it. If a majority supports the idea at the polls, you will have that to crow about, but I doubt you will risk embarrassing rejection at the ballot box. I’m saying you can Call-It-Whatever-You-Want-But-It’s-Not-Marriage, or Same-Sex CIWYWBINM; I’ll simplify it to SSW (same-sex-whatever).

Now I’ll invite SSW supporters to let readers know if you truly are only interested in the “marriage” label for yourselves, and not interested in forcing others to violate their constitutionally-endowed freedoms of thought, expression, association and pursuit of happiness. Will you take the position that you may disagree with my position but defend my right to express it? Liberal/progressive hands are already flying across keyboards, I’m guessing, to write just the opposite and call yet again for my column to be dropped—you leftists react predictably to opposing thoughts.

Thank God our thoughts are not available for examination by such loons who would support “thought crime” punishment, as we see by the imposition of legal sanctions on, for instance, a New Mexico photographer, for violating the “human rights” of a same sex couple. Just as in Oregon where a bakery owned by Christians is persecuted for not making a cake celebrating a lesbian SSW, the photographer declined, for reasons of conscience, the business of a gay couple wanting their SSW to be photographed.

“Human rights” violation, indeed, under a law passed in New Mexico. Read this carefully: There are no such things as “human rights” in America—we have rights specified in our Constitution and Bill of Rights that derive from “Nature and Nature’s God.” The common theme of our constitutional rights is to enshrine the individual as the arbiter of decision-making, protected from government interference in that free-will, conscience-driven, decision-making process. Those same leftist hypocrites that are intolerant of conservative thoughts expressed in any venue from this paper to broadcast/cable shows to the Internet have shouted down conservatives at public meetings, and harassed them at home. Think of the iconic magazine-cover painting by Norman Rockwell of the commonly clothed man standing up in a local meeting speaking his mind in front of his fellow citizens.

Respect for the law, indeed! Just as California officials refused to abide by the law of Prop 8, or even defend it, as is their duty, in New Mexico the law means nothing to the County Clerk of Dona Ana County, Lynn Ellins. “He has chosen to take the law into his own hands and begin issuing illegal same-sex “marriage” licenses against the opinion and direction of the Attorney General, and in so doing, abandoned his oath of office and the trust of those who elected him.” (ActRight.com) Some day these same “progressives” will see the law swept aside to allow implementation of something they oppose. What will be their legal recourse then after showing such disregard for the voters and the law now?