THE rule of law is meaningless to those seeking to force same-sex “marriage” on America.

— Comments —

Abigail writes:

Eric Holder’s advice to state attorneys general is consistent with the way the system is supposed to work.  The attorneys general represent the executive branch –  a branch of government separate and co-equal with the legislature.  As such, the attorneys general can and should under appropriate circumstances act as a check on legislative excesses.  Moreover, the highest oath of any state official is to uphold the Constitution (actually two constitutions, state and federal).  The attorney general therefore has an obligation to apply independent judgment as to the constitutionality of any particular statute he or she is asked to defend.

Eric Holder stressed that attorneys general should not decline to enforce or defend legislation merely based on their disagreement with the legislation or based upon political considerations.  The only legitimate consideration is whether the legislation is constitutional.

I understand the appeal of legislation as a reflection of the will of the people through their elected representatives.  In most cases, the will of the people should carry the day. But constitutional protections and  checks-and-balances are appropriate in order to protect us all from mob rule. If the legislature reigned supreme without question, we would all be in danger. Traditionalists in particular should appreciate this, as traditionalist religious beliefs and way of life often deviate substantially from the mainstream.

My comments above does not pertain to gay marriage per se.  But I will also note that a number of courts have held bans on gay marriage to violate the constitutional guarantee of equal protection under the law for all citizens.  While I understand that many  of your readers disagree with such court rulings, it is clearly an issue in which a state official might honestly reach the opposite conclusion and thus be obliged to follow his or her independent judgment on the matter.  Of course, despite these checks and balances, the people still ultimately reign supreme as they can always vote such an attorney general or the governor who appointed the attorney general out of office. These checks and balances merely hold back a tidal wave of people power and forces a conversation.

 Laura writes:

Our constitutional order includes no authoritative body to define and defend basic morality in light of Divine law, which is a serious inadequacy. That is the root of the problem here. However, leaving that issue aside, and working within the current constitutional limitations, it is not correct, as you say, that “the people still ultimately reign supreme.” For if the attorneys general refuse to defend state laws, these laws are much more likely to be overturned in court in such a way as to be beyond legislative correction.

I understand the appeal of legislation as a reflection of the will of the people through their elected representatives.

How generous. The idea that laws protecting the institution of marriage as it has always been defined in America and all of Western civilization are “legislative excesses” and “mob rule” is far-fetched, to say the least. The decision by any attorney general to disregard the people’s will in so basic and important a matter represents a serious affront to enumerated legislative powers. The attorney general does not have the duty to apply his “independent judgment” as to the Constitution, but to adhere to the Constitution, which does not specify that the judiciary may unilaterally ordain marriage laws and customs.

Traditionalists in particular should appreciate this, as traditionalist religious beliefs and way of life often deviate substantially from the mainstream.

In the case of marriage, traditionalists do not deviate from the mainstream in many jurisdictions. If they did, attorney generals would not be tempted to disregard these laws.

Joe A. writes:

This is a good illustration of John Adam’s oft quoted, oft ignored comments on the fitness of the basic Constitutional structure.

This is also a good illustration of why conservatives always lose.

Holder is clearly neither moral nor religious in the American sense.  Neither is that horse’s ass of a Pennsylvania attorney general Kathleen Kane who did this exact thing last year.  Her de facto success fueled dozens of copycat crimes including the action in Arizona, which is an escalation of the concept.

By acknowledging Holder’s moral claim to nullification in service of homosexuality, in the spirit of political self-interest (e.g., nullifying abortion or anti-RKBA legislation) we concede legal territory to the enemy who recognizes no reciprocal claim.  In effect, Abigail works the Liberal Ratchet herself.

The technicalities of Abigail’s call to ” vote such [politicians] out of office” are equally problematic.  First of all, we live in a rigged system that favors incumbency through name-recognition and constituency but also through the ability to define election law and investigate corruption.  Or not.  (The Pennsylvania AG rears its ugly head once again.)

In essence, we face a two front war:  the first on morality and its definition, which is the underlying basis for the second, which is the control of the State.  The Left deconstructs our own moral system by playing semantic games that hand cuff conservative pedants.  This garners increased power on any number of the usual dimensions of legitimate (legal system), referent (idolization), expert (ability to define terms), and coercive (monopoly on violence) powers that marginalizes us to impotence.

It really is being hoisted upon one’s own petard.

I think Kevin Macdonald’s thinking on the contrast between Northern hunter-gatherer societies and Near-Eastern/Mediterranean tribal societies is applicable, particularly his observation that voluntary/non-tribal societies have no natural means to repel a tribalistic invasion that outwardly conforms to the (relatively few) laws regulating their presence.  After a while, the democratic, individualist hunter-gatherer groups are simply out voted by the tribalists and that’s that.

Clearly, we see that happening in the U.S.  We are being out-voted, dispossessed of our own land and our own society even as we scrupulously adhere to our cherished “rule of law”…  eroded by endless pedantic compromise.

Sadly, only we care about the rule of law.  Our opponents view it for what it is:  a strategic weakness they can easily exploit.  The only possible counter-attack would be a call to American nationalism which is apparently unnatural and also preempted by fear of the R-word (“racist!”).

The end result is predictable:  loss after loss, retreat after retreat.  Unfortunately, there is nowhere left to go.  We’re the last stop on the line, so to speak.  Either America as a nation rediscovers its primal survival instinct or we cease to exist.  It’s really as simple as that.

Please follow and like us: