In New Hampshire’s case, the law was created by the state legislature. In California, the issue was a little different. Proposition 22 prevented the state from recognizing gay marriages. But the California State Supreme Court overturned the initiative on the grounds that marriage is a “fundamental right,” and the people can not abrogate a right through a ballot initiative. The result was Proposition 8, which amended the California State Constitution:

SEC. 7.5. Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.

The passage of Proposition 8 was followed by immediate legal challenges in the California Supreme Court, which ultimately overturned its own position on gay marriage.

Massachusetts is yet a different story. The Supreme Court of Massachusetts created law out of whole cloth, and then ordered the state legislature to pass the law, recognizing gay marriage in that state, and completely dismantling any semblance of the balance of powers.

People are frustrated at being dictated to by a handful of social engineers in black robes. Many arguments have been put forward opposing gay marriage. The consequences of legalization are the focus of this column.

Gay marriage will have consequences that may or may not be expected. We have not even begun to discuss all the potentialities that will spring from it. Wisdom requires any possibility be addressed and resolved to prevent rushing to action unprepared for the results.

While studying Rights, Social Justice and Equality, I ran across a column by Dr. Stephen Baskerville entitled, “Could your kids be given to gay parents?” It catalyzed everything that I was thinking and inspired this column. Dr. Baskerville has since expanded on his initial idea in an essay called The Real Danger of Same-Sex Marriage, which is included in Preserving Sacred Ground, published by Utah’s Sutherland Institute.

I believe that gay marriage is a direct threat to traditional families, in that, the children of traditional families may be in danger of government seizure in the name of fairness, and redistributed to same-sex couples.

Nonsense, right? Wrong. The current trend toward a society based on Social Justice is rapidly becoming a reality. The ideas of self-government and responsibility are fading, and independence is seen as anti-social. Our system of government will soon be so radically different from that established by the Constitution as to earn classification as a new species of government.

What is Social Justice? The idea comes from the slogan of the French Revolution of 1789, “Égalité, Liberté, Fraternité.” Égalité is what concerns me, because it is the principle behind Social Justice.

“Égalité” is often defined as equality, but the English word “egality” also appears in the dictionary. Not only are the two words different, they mean different things. Balint Vazsonyi writes in his book America’s 30 Years War,

“Note that I translate the French slogan ‘Égalité’ as ‘Egality,’ and not as ‘Equality.’ Webster’s Dictionary tells us that egality is ‘an extreme social and political leveling.’ Our word ‘egalitarian’ confirms that definition. The process of leveling is worlds apart from equality in the affairs of man, which was the aspiration of the Round Table….

“Egality is the elimination of differences. Since people are different, only force can cover up the differences, and then only temporarily. Once force is no longer applied, the differences reappear….”

Equality comprehends the natural differences between people, and creates laws designed to protect people from harm arising out of their differences. Equality means that everyone has equal claims on the government for the protection of their rights.

Social Justice is the application of the principle of “Egality” to society. The natural differences between people are stark; yet some insist there should be no differences at all. Mr. Vazsonyi correctly says that the only way to achieve social equality is by force. The elimination of differences will not arise out of a voluntary motion of the people. Laws designed to eliminate differences are enacted to coerce the desired result.

An example of this principle in our society is Affirmative Action. The law tries to eliminate racial differences between applicants for jobs, college entrance, etc., but has now created a new target for discrimination, white males. Other examples are Social Security, and welfare benefits including food stamps, subsidized housing, and health care.

How do these laws resolve economic differences? The force of government is applied to take from those who appear to have and give to those who appear to have not. This redistribution has generally resulted in an economic reshuffling of wealth, but laws like Affirmative Action have social consequences as well.

Social Justice demands not only equal rights, but also equal things. The rich are taxed to feed the poor, provide housing and health care, and a host of other statist welfare benefits. No person should have any rights or possessions that exceed that of another person. The final solution of Social Justice is to distribute the enjoyment of rights and wealth to everyone equally. Any perception of inequality among individuals must be eliminated.

Which brings us back to gay marriage. Gay unions are, by nature, childless unions. It is physically impossible for two men or two women to produce a child through sexual contact. While most of us say, “of course,” there are those who find inequality in it. And inequality must be eliminated.

Dr. Baskerville’s column quotes Massachusetts State Senator Therese Murphy as saying, “Forty percent of the children adopted have gone to gay and lesbian families” despite the fact that gays are only about 3 percent of the population. Does 40% reflect the percentage of adoption applications filed in Massachusetts by same-sex couples, or are same-sex couples favored for adoption?

Studies show that children reared by same-sex couples are three to four times as likely to become gay or lesbian themselves, as compared to their counterparts raised in traditional families¹. There is no rationale for placing 40% of adoptive children with less than 3% of the population, unless there is another agenda being played out.

If gay couples have the right to marry, then they also have the right to have children. Artificial insemination, or IUI, is one of the methods used by lesbian couples, but its success rate is still only 5 to 25 percent. And it will never work for men.

The passage of the federal Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997 allows for financial incentives for state social workers to remove children from homes, and provides additional bonuses for adoptions. This Act has created an official adoption market of children, legally stolen from their families by Child Protective Service agents, with or without just cause. It also provides a perfect vehicle for child redistribution.

Government has attempted to equalize people economically through redistribution of income. It has attempted to equalize people socially through race-based legislation. The next step is to equalize sexuality by legalizing gay marriage. Following that, I believe there will be an attempt to equalize families and eliminate any natural inequality between gay and heterosexual marriages.

Most of the necessary pieces are already in place to pave the way for Child Redistribution and the destruction of the traditional family. All that remains is national acceptance and broad legalization of gay marriage.

In a ruling by the California supreme court, the right of the People to alter their Constitution is held as inviolate.

Ironically, opponents of Prop 8 vowed to continue their fight, using the same means they claimed could not be used to pass Prop 8.

Celebrations by supporters of Prop 8 may be short-lived. The court, unfortunately, also held that the marriages of same-sex couples are valid, creating a Constitutional crisis which may only be resolved by an appeal to the US Supreme Court under an argument that the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause must allow other gay couples to marry. Look for this fight to erupt on the national scene in the next year.

The Court may have upheld the Rights of the People, but it also opened an avenue for retribution.

Some Miss California Peagean officials maintain that because Carrie Prejean didn’t disclose the existence of her photos before the pageant, she is in violation of her contract with the Miss California pageant, and should have her crown stripped. Miss Castonguay informed pageant officials previous to the pageant, and pageant officials allowed her to continue with the competition.

But Castonguay’s statement exposes a major flaw in the Pageant’s argument. She said, “I don’t know if I would’ve came forward with them, you know, and let them know that there were pictures out there. I wouldn’t have thought that they would ever be published.”

Castonguay agreed to her photo shoot in full knowledge the photos were going to be published. Carrie Prejean’s photos, as Castonguay points out, were not taken with the intent of publishing them. She couldn’t have known beforehand that someone would publish those photos because, at the time the photos were taken, Carrie wasn’t working for any modelling company, nor for any fashion magazine. These were sample photos taken to help her in her pursuit of a possible modelling career. Carrie failed to mention them because they were not available to the public. The publication of the photos is a blatant attempt to smear Carrie Prejean.

There is an enormous difference between the two photos shoots because of this detail, which provides a better explanation of why Prejean did not mention her photos. Her critics’ maintain she is a horrible, evil person who should be shunned, shamed, and shot (regardless of their anti-gun political positions). But it is a difference which will be convenientely ignored by the Move-on Media. Fortunately, there are right-thinking people that will not let the Truth slide.

The Left’s Hate Machine has since been set loose on Carrie. The smear campaigns, the lies, the innuendos, all the tools of personal destruction the Left possesses has been brought to bear again this upstart who dares to speak her mind in public.

You’ve seen the video of Keith Olbermann and Michael Musto, a gay columnist who writes for the Village Voice and pretends to be funny, savagely attacking Carrie Prejean in manner more than a little reminiscent of two catty 7th grade girls talking about the pretty new girl in school. They never address her statement; they just keep repeating how dumb she is. Right. She’s dumb.

For those who haven’t seen the video, here it is.

But because Keith Olbermann only has a viewership of 7, the leftist media Hate Machine needed to take things up a few notches and hired Matt Lauer of the Today Show for the next hit piece. Matt reports that “nude photos” of Carrie Prejean had been unearthed, and were being posted around the internet. Matt mentions that the photos might be a violation of Carrie’s contract with the Miss California pageant, but somehow forgets to mention that the posting of the photos might also be a violation of Carrie’s right to privacy and, if they were truly “nude photos,” that posting them might be a violation of child pornography laws because of Carrie’s age at the time they were taken.

Of course, we can’t tell how bad the photos really are because Miguel Almaguer, who wrote the report, refers to the “topless” photos as being too graphic for NBC to broadcast. Nonsense. A Google search for “Carrie Prejean photos” will bring them up for you. They are certainly racy, but aren’t much different than past covers of Sports Illustrated, which featured supermodels wearing only paint, or the photos of Miley Cyrus in Vanity Fair magazine, which were in full display on the Today Show. See for yourself.

The Photos were taken when Carrie was 17 (she was a minor), and were given to a modeling agency in the hopes of securing a modeling contract. Publishing those photos may constitute child pornography, and Matt Lauer promotes it. Strategically placed black bars are often used on these shows to cover nudity in photos, so why not now? Because by not broadcasting them, NBC knows that the imagination runs wild. The intent is the destruction of Carrie Prejean’s credibility  among conservatives.

But, you’ll notice they don’t ask Conservative groups for their opinions. Instead, they ask some Liberal to give us his opinion on what he thinks conservatives might do, or rather, should do. Leave it to the immoral Left to lecture America’s conservatives on what is righteous.

Now, a story has come out about the divorce of Carrie’s parents, in which one of her parents alleged that the other was gay. This, it is being reported, is said to be the cause of Carrie’s mental imbalance. Because, as I’m sure you’re aware, opposing gay marriage must be rooted in some mental imbalance. Hot Air Blog has the story, as does the New York Daily News.

The Left will not rest until Carrie Prejean’s reputation and credibility are dead.  They know their position is untenable, and Perez Hilton is a clown act who shouldn’t have brought the question up in the first place. But Gay Marriage is a Holy Sacrament of the Left, and they will protect their own, no matter the cost to others.

I haven’t been able to verify them yet but, if they are correct, the question must certainly be asked of the gay community why they are focusing so much attention on the LDS Church and its people.

1. Mormons make up less than 2% of the population of California. There are approximately 800,000 LDS out of a total population of approximately 34 million.

2. Mormon voters were less than 5% of the yes vote. If one estimates that 250,000 LDS are registered voters (the rest being children), then LDS voters made up 4.6% of the Yes vote and 2.4% of the total Proposition 8 vote.

3. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons) donated no money to the Yes on 8 campaign. Individual members of the Church were encouraged to support the Yes on 8 efforts and, exercising their constitutional right to free speech, donated whatever they felt like donating.

4. The No on 8 campaign raised more money than the Yes on 8 campaign. Unofficial estimates put No on 8 at $38 million and Yes on 8 at $32 million, making it the most expensive non-presidential election in the country.

5. Advertising messages for the Yes on 8 campaign are based on case law and real-life situations. The No on 8 supporters have insisted that the Yes on 8 messaging is based on lies. Every Yes on 8 claim is supported.

6. The majority of our friends and neighbors voted Yes on 8. Los Angeles County voted in favor of Yes on 8. Ventura County voted in favor of Yes on 8.

7. African Americans overwhelmingly supported Yes on 8. Exit polls show that 70% of Black voters chose Yes on 8. This was interesting because the majority of these voters voted for President-elect Obama. No on 8 supporters had assumed that Obama voters would vote No on 8.

8. The majority of Latino voters voted Yes on 8. Exit polls show that the majority of Latinos supported Yes on 8 and cited religious beliefs (assumed to be primarily Catholic).

9. The Yes on 8 coalition was a broad spectrum of religious organizations. Catholics, Evangelicals, Protestants, Orthodox Jews, Muslims all supported Yes on 8. It is estimated that there are 10 million Catholics and 10 million Protestants in California. Mormons were a tiny fraction of the population represented by Yes on 8 coalition members.

10. Not all Mormons voted in favor of Proposition 8. Our faith accords that each person be allowed to choose for him or her self. Church leaders have asked members to treat other members with “civility, respect and love,” despite their differing views.

11. The Church did not violate the principal of separation of church and state. This principle is derived from the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, which reads, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . .” The phrase “separation of church and state”, which does not appear in the Constitution itself, is generally traced to an 1802 letter by Thomas Jefferson, although it has since been quoted in several opinions handed down by the United States Supreme Court in recent years. The LDS Church is under no obligation to refrain from participating in the political process, to the extent permitted by law. U.S. election law is very clear that Churches may not endorse candidates, but may support issues. The Church has always been very careful on this matter and occasionally (not often) chooses to support causes that it feels to be of a moral nature.

12. Supporters of Proposition 8 did exactly what the Constitution provides for all citizens: they exercised their First Amendment rights to speak out on an issue that concerned them, make contributions to a cause that they support, and then vote in the regular electoral process. For the most part, this seems to have been done in an open, fair, and civil way. Opponents of 8 have accused supporters of being bigots, liars, and worse. The fact is, we simply did what Americans do: we spoke up, we campaigned, and we voted.

So far, these people have proven themselves to be irrational, violent, hypocrites who resort to vandalism and book-burning–all the things they have always claimed to hate–when they don’t get their way.

They live in a free society where they are protected by more special legislation, more than any other group in America. But they will not accept the rules of that society and resort to sedition. They don’t deserve the blessings of a free society.

Go to their website and goive them a piece of your mind. This shouldn’t be tolerated for any reason.

Think your kids will be safe if Prop 8 fails? Think again.

The Utah Republican Assembly previously endorsed Jason Chaffetz for Congress. My guess is that they will continue to back Jason, and will oppose Jim Matheson.

Actually, it’s getting so most Democratic politicians are spineless wienies in the face of the Democratic leadership. The more of them we can send home in November, the sooner we can all get our lives back in order.

The DUV-PAC Board of Directors will include:

• Chairman, David Pyne (Salt Lake County Republican Assembly)
• Vice-chairman, Larry Meyers (Utah Republican Assembly)
• Merrill Cook (U-FIRE)
• Don Guymon (editor of the Grassroots legislative report)
• Chris Herrod (Utah House of Representatives)
• Lowell Nelson (President, Utah Republican Liberty Caucus)
• Mike Thompson (Utah County Republican Assembly and former State Representative)

I noticed no-one from the Sutherland Institute was on the list, which makes sense considering their recent statements concerning Immigration reform. It appears they are more “Doug Wright Republicans” than Conservatives. They have allowed themselves to be caught in the compassion trap, i.e. where Mercy robs Justice and the Rule of Law is set aside with flawed arguments about how the kids are innocent.

Their position on immigration is simply Liberalism hiding among Conservative ideas–kind of like how our mothers told us that the Devil will tell us a thousand truths if he can get us to believe one lie. Don’t buy the lie. It’s the ice cream with just a tiny bit of dog poop in it.

I don’t agree with everything in the DUV-PAC platform, but I think they deserve our support.

I have heard many people say Craig is a hypocrite because he has voted against gay marriage and other pro-gay laws while he himself is allegedly gay. The evidence that he is gay is limited entirely to the testimony of a cop referring to an incident in an airport restroom. But there was no sex involved. There is no proof that Craig is gay, even if he was soliciting.

As far as the charge of hypocrisy goes, Craig represents a certain constituency in Idaho which is generally not favorable to laws designed to give gays more protections that the rest of us. Craig’s voting is consistent with the wishes of his constituency. Remember that previous to this revelation, Craig’s voting record was not much of a source of discussion. Now that his actions are public knowledge, the charge of hypocrisy is brought up to pressure him to leave office because there is no real requirement that he leave office.

So if Craig must leave office because of his “hypocrisy,” why has half the Democratic party not left office yet? If you will recall, a certain Democrat was given a standing ovation by his party when it was revealed that he had sex with an underage, male intern and refused to leave office.

The Democrats have the world monopoly on hypocrisy. The only real difference is we expect them to be corrupt, and they are ok with that.