Goes today to Tony Perkins. I haven't tackled one of his odiferous missives in quite a while, but this one is choice. Via Joe.My.God., his reaction to a new announcement from Eric Holder on treatment of married same-sex couples:
Um -- Holder works for the federal government, not the states or any particular state. The federal government, under the decision in Windsor, must recognize all legal marriages.
"Lawlessness"? See my comment above, under Windsor. And by the same token, married same-sex couples are legal spouses.
Sorry, Tony -- voters don't get to take away someone's rights by popular vote. That's why we have fundamental rights protected by the Consitution.
Every American who values the rule of law knows Perkins is full of it. There's a second point here, a subtext, if you will, that I think, given Perkins' past history, is germane: "Aaah! There's a black man in the White House, and he's not there to clean!"
The more I read of Perkins' screeds and his comments on "safe" media outlets (and he seems to have developed a tendency to play it safe -- he only seems to be appearing on "Christian" networks or Fox -- hmm -- same difference), the more I see that he's a one-trick pony: they all sound the same, give or take the buzzwords du jour -- "lawlessness" seems to be the new favorite -- and each just as substance-free as the last. Maybe it's because he never had much of a legitimate position to begin with.
It also strikes me, given the hysteria with which he greets the idea of same-sex couples, and LGBTs in general, being accorded equal rights and responsibilities under the law (see 14th Amendment, US Constitution), that he doesn't really like the way we do things in America.
Why am I not surprised?
The DOJ, which may as well be a satellite office of the HRC, has been all too happy to run point for homosexual activists, throwing bouquet after taxpayer-funded bouquet to unions that 33 states don't recognize.
Um -- Holder works for the federal government, not the states or any particular state. The federal government, under the decision in Windsor, must recognize all legal marriages.
In this latest adventure in lawlessness, Holder shreds marriage laws on everything from bankruptcy policy, alimony, prison visits, access to the September 11th Victims Compensation Fund, survivorship benefits, and other perks reserved for legal spouses.
"Lawlessness"? See my comment above, under Windsor. And by the same token, married same-sex couples are legal spouses.
There's been a lot of talk from the Obama administration about what homosexuals are 'entitled' to -- but not what voters are entitled to... like having their voices and ballots count.
Sorry, Tony -- voters don't get to take away someone's rights by popular vote. That's why we have fundamental rights protected by the Consitution.
Every American with an appreciation for the rule of law, for self-governance, and freedom must remember this act of arrogance in November when voters can send a message by firing the leaders who have aided and abetted this President.
Every American who values the rule of law knows Perkins is full of it. There's a second point here, a subtext, if you will, that I think, given Perkins' past history, is germane: "Aaah! There's a black man in the White House, and he's not there to clean!"
The more I read of Perkins' screeds and his comments on "safe" media outlets (and he seems to have developed a tendency to play it safe -- he only seems to be appearing on "Christian" networks or Fox -- hmm -- same difference), the more I see that he's a one-trick pony: they all sound the same, give or take the buzzwords du jour -- "lawlessness" seems to be the new favorite -- and each just as substance-free as the last. Maybe it's because he never had much of a legitimate position to begin with.
It also strikes me, given the hysteria with which he greets the idea of same-sex couples, and LGBTs in general, being accorded equal rights and responsibilities under the law (see 14th Amendment, US Constitution), that he doesn't really like the way we do things in America.
Why am I not surprised?
No comments:
Post a Comment