Fortunately, I haven’t seen Pat Buchanan on the air talking about Prop 8 recently, but this article gives every bit of the insight of this man’s view that civil rights should be up for a vote and Judge Walker is part of the judicial tyranny destroying American society.
Walker declared Proposition 8, by which 5.5 million Californians voted to prohibit state recognition of gay marriage, null and void. What the people of California voted for is irrelevant, said Walker; you cannot vote to take away constitutional rights.If the Walker decision is upheld by the Ninth Circuit and Supreme Court, homosexual marriage will be imposed on a nation where, in 31 out of 31 state referenda, the people have rejected it as an absurdity.
This is not just judicial activism. This is judicial tyranny.
This is a perversion of what the authors of the Constitution wrote and what the states approved. Through such anti-democratic means, the left has imposed a social and moral revolution on America with only the feeblest of protests from the people or their elected leaders.
…Walker says the only motivations behind Proposition 8 had been “biases” and “moral disapproval,” and “moral disapproval … has never been a rational basis for legislation.”
But what else is the basis for laws against polygamy and incest? What else was the basis for the Mann Act, which prevented a man from taking his girlfriend across the state line to a motel?
What is the basis for prohibiting prostitution, a free exchange of money for sexual favors, if not “moral disapproval”?
What the judge is saying with this opinion is that the majority cannot define morality, and, even if it does, it cannot impose it. We are defenseless against what we believe to be moral decadence.
But not even a judge can change the meaning of words. In every language known to man, marriage is defined as a union of a man and a woman. Same-sex marriage is an oxymoron, a contradiction in terms.
Walker may call such pairings marriages, but that does not make it so. As Lincoln said, “How many legs does a dog have if you call the tail a leg? Four. Calling a tail a leg doesn’t make it a leg.”
Oh god, it goes on and on…special bonus points for referencing the Declaration of Independence and what Thomas Jefferson thought about homosexuality. Is this a prescription, Pat?
The author of that declaration, Thomas Jefferson, equated homosexual acts with rape and wrote that male homosexuals (they used the term sodomites in that time) should be castrated and lesbians should have a hole cut into their noses.
Also see:
* Pat Buchanan’s latest bigot eruption: ‘Losing White America’
* Uncle Pat on MSNBC: America is “a country built basically by white folks”
* Why does Nazi apologist Pat Buchanan still have a job at MSNBC?
* Pat Buchanan explains White Resentment
* MSNBC’s Pat Buchanan: Powell Endorsement Of Obama Due To Race
* Exhibit A: Pat Buchanan – why we desperately need to discuss race




37 Comments


And bigots shouldhave their mouths sewn shut.
Question:Why would ANYONE listen to a) a failed candidate for President and b) a dickhead who used to write speeches for Richard “Dick[head]” NIXON!?!?
A cut hole in their noses?I guess that would make some things easier to get to…
Holes in their NosesThe first thing I thought of when I read that last little tidbit is that, in her first season, Rachel Maddow used to have a segment every once in a while called “It’s Pat” (he probably never knew that “It’s Pat” was also the name of the non-gender-conforming character made famous by Julia Sweeney on Saturday Night Live).
According to Maddow at the time, they agreed on nothing, but respected each other’s intellect and enjoyed sparring. That is, until Pat showed up and told Rachel that white men were solely responsible for everything good in America and she was pretty much forced to apologize to her viewers the following night. After that, not so much “It’s Pat” on the Maddow show.
Still, I wonder if he’d ever be able to muster the courage it would require to tell Rachel to her fact that Jefferson would have cut a hole in her nose.
He’s a monster.
Didn’t Jeffersonalso own other humans as property?
The Mann Act?Reaching back in time to pull out a statute whose historical applications are completely defunct and almost universally seen as completely antithetical to the modern understanding of privacy and freedom (and freedom of privacy) doesn’t seem like the greatest strategy for convincing other people to share your point of view.
Ah, yes!I guess Pat can’t stand being out of the spotlight, so he spews this bile to crank up the religious reicht!
Remember his “culture war” speech at the 1980 RNC convention in Houston??
Equality is Blasphemy?We have reached a bizarre and sorry state of affairs. When will people get it – that human rights/civil rights are not to be abrogated by “popular opinion” aka bigotry. In colonial times Puritans were executing Quakers and Anglicans were urinating on jailed Baptists, so we separated church and state to help escape the state sponsored intolerance. Some seem to want to return to these abominable roots.
You know…Whenever I hear about the bigots spewing forth the “will of 7 million people” crap, I always want someone to ask them…what about the will of the 6.4 million people who voted against the bill. Have we really put the validity of a persons rights up to the difference between first and second place in a 50m dash?
The Mann Act?????This is something we should uphold and admire?
We needed/need laws to stop people having sex in other states?
Mann ActWasn’t that about underaged girls? What this idjit doesn’t seem to understand that a lot of the things that he’s reciting actually harm people. Two guys going at it (btw, has anyone been watching True Blood lately?) isn’t going to harm anyone as long as both guys are consenting adults. Ol’ Pat’s right hand probably gets quite a work out with the idea of two women going at it, so it’s ok to ignore that combination apparently. I find the polygamy argument to be kind of hilarious though. One man and one woman, like it has been since the beginning of time, just ignore those parts of the bible. They happened before time began.
The law was (ab-)usedFrom Wikipedia:
I guess that Congress didn’t replace “immoral purposes” without reason (like Justices changing their opinion about its constitutionality).
DamnI wish he hadn’t brought up the Mann Act. Now all day my head is going to be stuck, trying to remember a lengthy – and bad! Don’t forget bad! – joke that ended with some schmuck being arrested for transporting gulls across a staid lion for immortal porpoises.
It isn’t a joke worth remembering.
The constitution is progressiveThe constitution is a progressive document. It was also a document that has checks and balances written into it.
If one branch of the government goes rouge, you have 2 other branches of the government to put it in check.
The voters of California went rouge and most of them were duped into believing lies about the LBGT community.
The churches wanted to instill fear and mis-truth about the community in order to paint a bad light upon it, and they brought a lot of their collection plates from out of state to fund that.
Here you have a group looking to solidify in COMMITED RELATIONSHIPS being painted as child molesters and sluts. It’s that a bit contradictory?
Then you have everyone’s church preaching to vote it down.
There is also a reason there’s a separation of church and state.
Perhaps one could make the argument that the church is forcing it’s will on the people of America.
By that standard, Brown v Board of Ed is Judicial Tyrranyand we would have segregation in half of the US, and still have “No Irish” signs on various public buildings
Be nice, Nixon was more liberal on some things than the Presidentsad to say…oh, guess I am one of those nasty bloggers
If not for his paranoiaNixon would be one of our more fondly remembered presidents.
I thought it was a sedated lion.
That’s the point, Pat
That’s the point, Pat. What IS the basis other than moral disapproval? For that matter, what is the basis FOR the moral disapproval? If it is purely religious, then it belongs between the individual and the clergy, not the citizen and the cops.
Nobody is saying you can’t continue to disapprove, or to express that disapproval. Nobody is supporting making any of these things mandatory, so those who disapprove are free not to engage in it.
But if you can’t make a case against it that has no secular component other than “lots of people disapprove” then you can’t make laws against it in this country.
And, buddy, it is for the proponents of polygamy, incest, and prostitution to make their case. Not us.
Reverse Lobotomy
How about we cut a hole (a new one, mind you) into Pat’s head and insert a brain?!
the true law of unintended consequencesThat’s right. Congress originally intended the Mann Act to prevent a form of human trafficking known as “white slavery.” Or at least that’s what Congress had in mind, but they prettied up the terminology and it got vague. Courts subsequently interpreted the law as widely as possible, i.e., the bit about “to transport a female across state lines for immoral purposes.” So, if Mr. Jones and Mrs. Smith of San Francisco took the train to Reno for a weekend of fun, they were up on serious federal charges if someone ratted them out.
sidebar: bigot eruption elsewhereThis one sounds like Pat, unplugged. His Eminems the Archbishop of Guadalajara.
http://www.latimes.com/news/na…
You mean there isn’t a hole in his head already?
quoting JeffersonI think these Jefferson quotes are more on point:
“No man has a natural right to commit aggression on the equal rights of another . . . .”
“And the day will come, when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the Supreme Being as his father, in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva, in the brain of Jupiter.”
“When wrongs [like prop 8] are pressed because it is believed they will be born, resistance becomes morality.”
Wow!He’s alleging bribery!
this is not a time for the Mexican RC church to draw attentionBenny XVI is still trying to settle the blowback in Mexico from the Legion of Christ scandal, an organization that knew a thing or two about fund raising, not to mention the usual ugly stuff. This was no time for His Unholiness the Cardinal to spread more bad karma.
http://online.wsj.com/article/…
!
What? I always thought the Mann Act prohibited transporting people for immortal porpoises. Flipper lives! I’m here all week. Tip your waitress.
no it was crossing a maid lion for maternal perjuriesWhich would make the defendant a lion motherf—–r.
agreed, but –I think you meant, “Went rogue.”
Going rouge is something else entirely. If, for example, the Judicial branch, e.g., Antonin Scalia, went rouge, it would sent a precedent.
That’s why I said “a new one” Q. To match the 100 already there!
The old white racistbrings out his bigotry to shake at us once again. What a waste of human flesh. Why don’t all these crazies just move back to their fatherlands and be done with it. Oh , that’s right, THE EUROPEAN UNION HAS A HUMAN RIGHTS BILL that includes LGBT. Whoops!
Toothless conservative dinosaur.Might as well solicit opinions from Jesse Helms via ouija board.
You know who Pat reminds me of?If you’re a Doctor Who fan, that it…
http://www.daleklinks.co.uk/me…
I just want to know…How the gender provisions in current marriage law prevent incest, polygamy or beastiality. These always get brought up as the boogeymen if equality in marriage is realized, but I don’t see the connection.
That’s Mr. Ratzinger, if you’re nasty
Isn’t it obvious?Two men or two women marrying each other is so disgusting, we might as well allow anything at all, because marriage means nothing any more.
Maybe an earworm would help clear your headIn the jungle.
The mighty jungle.
The lion sleeps tonight…