Our Government Would Outlaw the Declaration of Independence Today

Many people don’t know we celebrate Independence Day. It’s a non-work day, so that’s good enough for them. Political independence from a controlling government over local politics was the goal. The following is from Breitbart:

“A new poll just out from Rasmussen shows the credibility of the Supreme Court has been severely frayed among likely voters. A telephone poll conducted after the Obamacare and gay marriage decisions shows fully 33% of likely voters believe their states should ignore decisions of the Courts. This is a 37% increase from only four months ago, when Rasmussen asked the question for the first time. Only 52% of likely voters disagreed with the proposition.”

This is good news. Given today’s political climate, I’m willing to wager that the courts and Congress would consider the Declaration of Independence seditious and treasonous. People would go to jail advocating the principles outlined in the Declaration.

How do I know? The federal courts have been telling individual states that what’s written in their state constitutions and what people have voted on inn special elections are null and void. Before the latest SCOTUS pro-same-sex marriage ruling Federal judges declared that Kentucky and Virginia must acknowledge marriage between people of the same sex.

Here’s Kentucky’s constitutional provision:

“Only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Kentucky. A legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized.”

The referendum was approved by 75% of the voters and applied to everybody regardless of gender or sexual proclivities. The “consent of the governed” has spoken loudly in more than 30 states on the same-sex marriage issue.

Of course, the Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision nullified every state constitution on the issue. Homosexuals and their supporters cheered the decision even though there is no word about marriage in the Constitution. If the courts can make law out of thin air in one case, it can do it in every case.

What good are state constitutions if two or three federal judges can nullify any provision? If judges can say one provision is “unconstitutional” based on a legal fiction, what’s to say they can’t do it on other provisions?

It’s important to note that nearly every time the issue of same-sex marriage came before the people, voters rejected it, even in left-of-center California. Consider this paragraph from the Declaration:

“But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”

Like King George of England, these judges have by their rulings “dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people” and suspended “legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.”

The Declaration couldn’t be clearer. David Azerrad writes that that the “claim that equality mandates redefining marriage” is laughable. “The ‘Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God’ countenance ordered liberty, and the husband-and-wife, mother-and-father family is a core institution for securing what the Constitution calls ‘the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.’ What’s more, no one’s core rights are violated if marriage is not redefined to suit their tastes.” Same-sex relationships know nothing of “posterity.”

As I mentioned in a previous article, the Declaration appeals to the “Laws of Nature and Nature’s God” as well as “the Supreme Judge of the world.” Marriage is a creation ordinance defined by God. Where are the courts getting their definition of marriage? They’re pulling it out of thin air.

If the definition of marriage can be changed by a whim of law, then anything can be changed.

Douglas Wilson mentions the long-held and supported doctrine of the lesser magistrate:

“The legislature of Kentucky, or Virginia, or any other state that this is being done to, should pass a measure requiring the governor to just say no. The governor should sign it, and then inform the feds that he has instructed the clerks of every county court house in the state to refuse to issue any mirage licenses. It doesn’t matter what the federal judge says — we the people of the great state of ‘whichever one it is’ need to become insufficiently docile and compliant.”

This legal approach “has happened elsewhere, on different issues. It is happening now with Washington and Colorado saying that smoking dope is okay with them.” If enough of these states banded together, it would be nearly impossible for the Federal government to do anything to a majority of states that convene to protect their sovereignty. What if the United Nations voted to impose an international income tax? Don’t you think a vast majority of American would say no even if the President, Congress, and the courts went along with it?

It’s time that the states stand up for the principles that this nation was founded upon. Too much blood was shed not to.

Previous post

A Response to Bad Arguments in Defense of Same-Sex Sexuality

Next post

Rainbows, Lightning, and Droughts: What About These Signs?