Skip to comments.A Liberal Judge Lights a Fuse
Posted on 08/10/2010 3:24:18 AM PDT by Scanian
Last week, when Judge Walker's decision in Perry v. Schwarzenegger came out, I felt a dreadful fear.
My fear was not about what gay marriage would do to the institution of traditional marriage. I reckon that marriage is not as fragile as conservatives fear, although one should never underestimate the damage that a liberal wrecking crew can do. Marriage is more than a "cultural construct." To use a liberal argument, the science is in on marriage. It is a profoundly Darwinian, evolutionary adaptation that will long survive the fashionable twists and turns in liberal jurisprudence.
No, I fear what this decision, if confirmed by Justice Anthony Kennedy, will do to the politics of the United States.
It seems pretty clear that Judge Walker imagines that his decision, brimming with findings of fact from social science, will be a decisive victory in the culture war and resolve forever the question of gay marriage.
No doubt in addition to his knowledge of social science the judge is also familiar with the the last chaps that pinned all their hopes on decisive victory: the Germans inspired by the immortal Clausewitz. It was a brilliant concept, and an understandable response to Germany's strategic problems. But look how it turned out. Germany scored a decisive victory against the Russians in 1914-18 but got ground down to defeat on the Western Front. Then in 1939-45 Germany scored a decisive victory against France but got ground down to the most decisive defeat in all history by the Russians.
Our liberal friends are also wedded to the decisive victory. They achieved decisive victories on race with Brown v. Board of Education and the Civil Rights Acts, but turned the whole South against the Democratic Party. They achieved a decisive victory on abortion with Roe v. Wade, but raised up a whole movement of rejection against them. Obama-Pelosi-Reid scored a decisive victory on ObamaCare and then paraded in the streets to stuff it in the faces of the racist Tea Partiers that rose up to reject their government takeover.
Another decisive victory and liberals will create a veto-proof majority of the American people united against liberals and everything they stand for.
But I do not fear too much the conflict that liberals are conjuring up with their decisive victories. One way or another, liberals will get what is coming to them. I fear what the conflict will do to conservatives. I fear it will make us more like liberals, for in learning to fight the oppressors we often become them.
Look what the culture war has done to liberals.
Seventy years ago liberals set out to fight against the white Southern obsession with race. Now, after America elected a black president, liberals can think of nothing but race. An African American acquaintance confidently told me recently that opposition to President Obama was all about race.
Liberals have been fighting for half a century against "homophobia" by which I think they mean hatred rather than fear of homosexuals. But a gay acquaintance recently told me how he "loathed" Sarah Palin.
Then there are the feminists. It was the marginalization, the humiliation of women that brought them into the streets and the lobbies. So what do they do? They have gamed the education system to humiliate boys. Ask 11-year-old Sam Besserman about that.
All these nice folks belong to "protected classes," a liberal euphemism for privileged classes. What is it about privilege that makes people into such haters?
I found an answer in South Pacific, from the old days when liberals were talking guardedly about race. You'll remember the song:
"You've got to be taught To hate and fear You've got to be taught From year to Year It's got to be drummed in your dear little ear You've got to be carefully taught"
Er, no liberals. You've got it completely backwards. It is not true that:
"You've got to be taught Before it's too late Before you are 6 or 7 or 8 To hate all the people your relatives hate You've got to be carefully taught"
On the contrary, the hard thing to do is to teach people at any age not to hate people their relatives hate. That is why most religions feature forgiveness and the settling of feuds. Given that liberals completely misunderstand hate, it's not surprising that our big challenge is to teach liberals not to hate.
"You've got to be taught Before it's too late And Alinsky has made both you and your mate To hate all the people the liberals hate You've got to be carefully taught"
And that's why I fear the bomb that Judge Walker has tossed into the public square. His decision will conjure up a generation of conservative culture warriors that may come to embrace and perfect the very liberal cruelties they fight to defeat. He might teach conservatives to hate.
It’s far too late to forgive. This household wants and has been preparing for full blown civil war. I am talking armed revolt against our government masters. Trench warfare in the inner cities. That day is fast approaching.
From the home page disclaimer
That's the liberal interpretation of history as far as I can see. The big government, racist politicians like Byrd and Richard Russell had high-jacked the South for decades as far as I can see. Did the south abandon the Democrats because of race,or because of the national party evolving toward Marxism and rejection of traditional American values? I hate to see conservatives stand with the clan and segregationists at this late date.
The 2000 Florida election recount was the epiphany for me. It was then that the scales fell from my eyes.
Democrats were MARXISTS! They would do **anything** to gain power. They were not people of good will. They would kill conservatives if they could. They just can’t get away with it...( yet).
At that point, I knew I could never have Democrat for a friend. They were either too stupid or too evil.
***...the science is in on marriage. It is a profoundly Darwinian, evolutionary adaptation that will long survive the fashionable twists and turns in liberal jurisprudence***
Unfortunately, from this point forward; our children and grandchildren will be REQUIRED to accept homosexual coupling as normal. Any parental instruction to the contrary will be reported by school teachers and might well be cause for *hate speech* punishment of the children and parents.
If there is any fear of hatred welling up within Conservatives it will not be against Homosexuals. It will be found, and is already present, against liberals.
It is a reasonable hate, it is a responsible hate, it is a needed hate and it is a responsive hate. It is also a painful hate as many Conservatives are forced to choose between their very freedom and family members, friends, even at times their communities and places of worship.
If liberals win we live in chains, Marxism, Communism, a Dictatorship, a nation where God will be outlawed, replaced by Gaia. How do you not hate people who are destroying your children’s future, their lives, their freedom, their rights?
How not to hate a group of people who want nothing more than to turn future generations into walking mindless robots, incapable of free thought or free will. People who want nothing more than to turn your children away from God.
How do you not hate people who demand full control over your children’s lives and their very souls? Those who teach your children there is no sin, no right or wrong, no morality. Liberal beliefs place the souls of our children at risk of damnation, how do you not hate that?
It is impossible not hate those who through deed or support are pushing America towards that reality. If liberals win I would be imprisoned for these very comments - may God forgive me for I am quickly moving towards hate.
I could care less if two queers get married. My problem is can they adopt a kid to bring into their sex circle?
If so,, can a 50 yr old guy go adopt a little girl for his pleasure?
I contend that a change in marriage laws based on the Constitution ‘equal rights’ provision will also enable other forms of marriage such as multiple husbands and wives in a “mutually loving relationship” in order to receive governament benefits.
Has anyone read the laws concerning survivor’s benefits? Do they limit recovery to one spouse or simply refer to the surviving spouse? Would multiple survivors be entitled to multiple benefits?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.