Dear Sharron Angle, About Those Second Amendment Remedies.....

Dear Sharron Angle,

You famously said the following in January:

"You know, our Founding Fathers, they put that Second Amendment in there for a good reason and that was for the people to protect themselves against a tyrannical government. And in fact Thomas Jefferson said it's good for a country to have a revolution every 20 years.

I hope that's not where we're going, but, you know, if this Congress keeps going the way it is, people are really looking toward those Second Amendment remedies and saying my goodness what can we do to turn this country around? I'll tell you the first thing we need to do is take Harry Reid out."

Now I will agree with you, in basic substance, that the Second Amendment is the final check on a real tyranny. I'm not sure that spending too much, bailing out AIG and the automakers and reforming healthcare really qualifies as a tyranny, but I digress.

It is also true, and I am sure you'll agree, that the right to marry whom you want is a fundamental right. Even the Supreme Court has said so, like in Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1968).

At present the case of Perry v. Schwarzennegger, wherein a Federal judge initially appointed by Ronald Reagan and confirmed under George H.W. Bush, Vaughn R. Walker, found that California's Proposition 8, outlawing gay marriage was unconstitutional, is likely heading to the Supreme Court of the United States of America.

Judge Walker found that Proposition 8, among other things, violated the due process clauses and equal protection clauses, and was based on stereotypes and prejudices which are out of date. It was an act of supreme courage in our balkanized times.

Sharron, it is obvious that once this case reaches the Supreme Court which way 8 of the judges will vote. We all know that the liberal block of Sotomayor, Breyer, Kagan, and Ginsburg will most likely vote to uphold Judge Vaughn's ruling, and that the activist conservatives of Alito, Scalia, Roberts the Umpire, and Thomas will do Constitutional gymnastics in order to find some lousy reason to reject it. Then there is the wild card of Justice Kennedy, and upon him ride the hopes and dreams of millions of Americans who only want to get married and be miserable like the rest of us - just kidding!

So let's say that Kennedy goes with his activist conservative pals, like he did on the abominable Citizens United v. FEC, wherein he wrote the opinion, and created out of whole cloth a corporate aristocracy from nothing. Let's say they overturn Judge Walker's decision, and reinstate that blessed example of a tyranny of the slimmest majorities, Proposition 8, and in so doing remove a fundamental right from approximately 10% of American citizens, and throw equal protection under the law under a bus, as well as a long line of cases, including Loving v. Virginia.

I think we can all agree that the gay population of the United States is probably not the most heavily armed demographic. I know very few gays who know what Mossy Oak [tm] is, much less own any. But I was wondering what you would think is the appropriate Second Amendment Remedy - your word, not mine - for a group of people that have most certainly lost a fundamental right by an actual tyranny of a majority, and to have that removal upheld by a bunch of unaccountable activist jurists sitting in their ivory tower, answerable to no one.

Anyway, get back to me when you can, but before Election day. I know a lot of people that would be interested in your answer, myself most of all.

TTFN,

RayRay

California Steaming

The California Supreme Court dropped and ball, and dropped it big time. In the never ending search for fairness for all Americans under the law, the lilly livered justices of the Golden State's High Court decided to reverse themselves in a fashion I have never witnessed in my adult life.

If you recall, the Californis Supreme Court decided not too long ago that the Constitution of the state mandated that gay and lesbian couples be afforded the right to marry the person of their choice. They had based this prior decision on the failure of any other scheme, like civil unions, to provide EQUAL PROTECTION under the law, namely the fundamental right to marry.

Not to be outdone by such mundane concepts like basic fairness, common decency and equal protection under the law, certain member of the Californian electorate, most of whom are members of what is euphemistically called the religious right, put forth Proposition 8, which banned future gay and lesbian marriages.

Bizarrely, the decision, which ran to 130+ pages, permitted the 18,000 gay and lesbian unions that took place prior to the decision to stand, stating that Prop 8 did not entirely repeal or abrogate the prior marriages. Rather, the 6 cowards agreed that the word marriage now only applies to heterosexual unions, but that all the same rights are preserved in civil unions. This begs the question of why all the bother............

This was a terrible decision, and permit me to say why: the California Supreme Court found, in a prior decision, that the right to marry the person of your choice was a FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT. Those are magic words. Fundamental means basic; means the entry level; means without this, there are no following rights.

This prior decision was therefore precedent, and should have been respected as such.

Under the United States Constitution the fundamental rights are the ones like freedom of and from religion; freedom to move about the nation unfettered and live where you want; to have or not have children; the freedom from cruel and unusual punishment; the right to counsel. These are the rights we don't need government imprimatur. We possess them because we are Americans. Period.

And these fundamental rights cannot be taken away by a whim. Majority rule does not, and need not apply. It would require an amendment to the Constitution. You can look up on your own what an arduous process that is.

Yet, the California Supreme Court has now permitted the destruction of what it already found to be a fundamental right based upon a popular vote, notwithstanding prior precedence. Ladies and gentlemen, this a textbook case of what we call the TYRANNY OF THE MAJORITY, and what Constitutions are meant to prevent. It is very un-American for this turn of events to have occurred.

And the one courageous dissenting justice, Justice Carlos R. Moreno, said it best when he wrote that Proposition 8 means "requiring discrimination" which "strikes at the core of the promise of equality that underlies our California Constitution" and "places at risk the state constitutional rights of all disfavored minorities."

The Witch Hunt salutes you, Justice Moreno.

For those celebrating this travesty, enjoy your schadenfreude for now. But also know you have contributed to the pain for millions of your fellow Americans for the sake of your petty vanities. And there shall be a comeuppance, and conservatism shall be further marginalized for its mendacious ways. You are people not "preserving marriage" but rather trying to destroy your fellow American out of some sort of baseless jealousy or other hatred.

You all should be ashamed for your schadenfreude. Such joy at the pain of others is sinful, at least according to the Bible I have read. Your lack of compassion for your fellow man evinces your unworthiness of the epithet "Christian." Verily, you are the modern day Pharisees.

And I also know that those of you celebrating this as a victory only feel this way because you are homophobes. Plain and simple. Well, please do us a favor, check your calendar, and figure out this is the 21st Century. Please take you Medieval attitudes about the very natural phenomenon of homosexuality, stuff them somewhere, and actually read the Book of Leviticus. You will find a lot of things in there that are called abominations, and some of them are mundane and some you have already done twice today, like eat shellfish or bacon. If you are wearing a polyester/cotton blend, you are an abomination. Just like the gays and lesbians you hate so much.

And if you are lucky, maybe you will realize that the Old Testament is simply a collection of loosely related stories, and not to be taken literally.

Last I checked, Jesus Christ was mum on this issue, among others. And he probably doesn't appreciate his name being taken in vain and the like.

I have said it before, and I will say it again: beware those who tell you they know the mind of God; they are either mad, or lying to you.