The Red Herring

-By Dan Scott

The shocking actions of Judge Walker in raising specious rationalizations as to why gay marriage is a civil right has put the liberal agenda front and center to the body politic. In his zeal to create rights out of the whole cloth where they never before existed, Judge Walker may have actually set the country on the path to dictatorship. Not only it seems liberals have finally destroyed the concept of marriage as a union between one man and one woman as has been recognized by Law for over 200+ years in this Republic, he has also put the whole concept of self governance into question.

Some have made the remark that “marriage” is not mentioned in the US Constitution and thus gave an out to the destruction of marriage, as we knew it. It is implied under the 10th Amendment:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

The States have the right under the US Constitution to regulate, i.e. license the activities of its citizenry within reasonable limits as set by the US Constitution. Under the practice of English Common Law local authorities regulated who could and could not be married and to whom. The Federal Government has no right to infringe upon these State’s rights as this judge has done so when the Law is settled. I will not debate the issue of gay marriage itself here since that is another issue unto itself entirely and not the focus of this article. Many, in my opinion are missing the real issue here; gay marriage imposed via the courts is a RED HERRING. The real issue is the Court is invalidating the guarantee of the US Constitution that every State is to have a “Republican Form of government”.

Section. 4.

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened), against domestic Violence.

What this judge did was to deny the voters of California participation in their government under the Laws of California, a sovereign State. In other words, the only choices available to them are not choices at all but only pre-approved inane sanctimony to give the appearance of a democratic process. This is exactly what occurred in the Soviet Union, a show election for world opinion. What we have witnessed here is the Court literally engaging in a Coup d’état against the People of California to deny them a Republican form of governance. Whenever a minority imposes its will on the majority that is called a dictatorship. Clearly according to the vote, gay marriage advocates are in the minority and thus they are imposing their will and lifestyle upon the majority against their express will. A lifestyle that will enjoy a potential subsidy and privileges at the expense of the taxpayers.

Maybe a reading of John Locke’s Treatises on Government is in order for many of you who are only now coming to appreciate the nuance of self-rule and the imposition of minority agendas. The Founding Fathers based their creation of the US government 80 years later on John Locke’s exposition of self-governance. The short version is a society develops its laws according to the common acceptance of the rules it mutually wishes to regulate itself. Those mutually accepted rules define the limitations on individuals according to the belief system of that society to which they belong and their participation in it. What is normal and acceptable is not determined by an individual but by society at large otherwise there is no context for right and wrong much less laws. The basis of freedom is NOT to do as you please where the law does not specifically speak but to act in a manner that does not infringe upon the rights of others according to the commonly held beliefs of that society. Individual freedom and self-indulgence are not the same and should never be conflated as being such. Example: Adults should not have sex with children; society has enacted laws to support that belief system. Unless and until that societal belief changes, any infraction of that belief is subject to legal sanction and is not considered an infringement of an individual’s freedom. Freedom is not the right to indulge your passions at your whim. Only Society has a right to make that change, not some judge who self appoints himself as some expert or refers to some alternate orthodoxy that is in vogue at the moment. This is precisely why all Laws must come through the legislature where the People mutually consent otherwise chaos results. Therefore all Laws are based upon the mutual acceptance of society, which would be subject to said Laws. Any non-mutual imposition of Law is tyranny and must be resisted otherwise freedom is lost. It is self evident that the homosexual marriage agenda and a host of other liberal agenda items were not in vogue or much less accepted at the founding of the Republic 200+ years ago and as such any later changes in Law after the initial mutual agreement must also be mutually agreed upon, that is why we have an Amendment process to the Constitution.

This judge also violated the Court’s own rules, i.e. Stare Decisis. The law on marriage was settled for over 200+ years, the judge had no right to unsettle it to cause societal chaos and division. The matter of gay marriage is the sole province of the People’s elected representatives or in California’s case also a direct vote of the People via the State Constitution, not the Judiciary. This is the exact same method of political cowardice perpetrated via Roe v. Wade which over 30 years later to this very day has divided the public. Liberals failed to convince the People of California and now they seek to impose their will upon the population. Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and Attorney General Jerry Brown are very foolish not to challenge the ruling since in essence they literally are giving up State Sovereignty to the whims of a judge who can pull a specious argument out of the air. These two men are most of all – cowards.

Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license. Indeed, the evidence shows Proposition 8 does nothing more than enshrine in the California Constitution the notion that opposite sex couples are superior to same-sex couples. Because California has no interest in discriminating against gay men and lesbians, and because Proposition 8 prevents California from fulfilling its constitutional obligation to provide marriages on an equal basis, the court concludes that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional.

This ruling is an indirect attack on the “Right of Self Determination.” If this ruling is allowed to stand then the voting rights of all Californians has been abrogated since their vote was dismissed as irrational by the judge. In other words, if your vote does not conform to the PC standards of the ruling elite, your vote does not count because it is not rational. You see where that leads? Since when does a judge on any level have a right to decide if your vote is rational? Article 4 of the Constitution guarantees each State of the Union a Republican form of government, how is your vote not counting a type of Republican government? So now the elites get to dictate what we can vote on and if that vote counts based upon their arbitrary and capricious agenda, doesn’t sound like a democratic process to me, does it to you?

This also opens up all of the other California voter propositions to arbitrary attack at the convenience of those who have an agenda. For you in California specifically, the current budget impasse would easily be solved for spendthrift Democrats if it were not for that nettlesome Proposition 13 (1978) which stopped politicians from endlessly hiking property taxes to fund their inexhaustible series of welfare state vote buying scams. If one of the State Agencies or welfare recipients were to sue California to repeal Proposition 13, there would be no recourse since in “today’s” spending binge deficits caused by Democrats, it is NOT “rational” to have a limit on property taxes. So you see the problem here? If your vote is deemed irrational then you have no right, no say in how your government is run. Who makes the decision that the People of California are rational (the land of fruits and nuts aside)? So if your vote is not rational according to some liberal judge, then by what stretch of the imagination is there to say that defunding some Community Action Board is not rational either? How about putting a cap on politician’s salaries or term limits? If a judge says by their own authority that’s not rational of the voters, then what’s the point of self-governance other than to rubber stamp the agenda of the elite?

Given the rules of the Court that a judge can only rule on the question presented before him and since Proposition 8 was merely codifying the Stare Decisis of 200+ years of settled law on the subject of marriage (by the judge’s own admission), where does he gain the authority to over turn Stare Decisis much less order gay marriage? This judge has literally created a new law out of whole cloth without any benefit of legislation. Apparently, usurpation is now enshrined in the Judiciary as a means to legislate with zero input from the governed, the very definition of a dictatorship.

Speaking of Usurpation, didn’t the Declaration of Independence specifically mention the very act of preventing legislatures and voters from enacting laws as one of the grievances leading to the separation from England? On top of the Arizona immigration ruling this is the second time the courts have violated the sovereignty of the States to act in defense of their population.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

My suggestion to all Californians at this time is to demonstrate in the streets and in front of the governor’s mansion to demand they respect your vote until that political coward (girly man) Arnold Schwarzenegger orders Jerry (Moonbeam) Brown to do his job to defend your right of self determination.


Gay Marriage

Bill of Rights, US Constitution

Articles, US Constitution

John Locke

Declaration of Independence

Judge Walker’s Ruling examined

Proposition 13 (1978)

Dan Scott calls himself a “Member of the Global Capitalist Cabal preaching Capitalism and personal responsibility as the economic solution to world poverty.” He is also a member of the 14th Amendment Society — victimhood is a liberal code word for denying the civil rights of others. He is also a proud member of the Global Warming Denier Cabal, insisting that facts not agendas determine the truth.

Dan can be reached for comments at

In the ethical exercise of journalism to avoid the appearance of impropriety due to a conflict of interest, this blogger discloses that I receive no direct monetary reward or compensation or in kind gifts for the views I express. This is to demonstrate ethical conduct unlike Congress whose Quid Pro Quo legislation benefits their campaign contributors and in some cases themselves directly.

Additionally, the funding for this website is from individual contributions and revenue from advertisers without regard to specific content.

Copyright Publius Forum 2001