Wednesday, Dec. 7, 2016    Login | Register        

Gay marriage ruling is vigilante law

Cal Thomas's picture

SAN DIEGO — A nation that does not see in law a right to life for its unborn children and a court that allows more than 50 million of them to be killed claiming a nonexistent “penumbra” in the Constitution is not about to acquire a moral — much less a constitutional — backbone when it comes to same-sex “marriage.”

The decision by a single, openly gay federal judge to strike down the will of 7 million Californians, tradition dating back millennia (not to mention biblical commands, which the judge decided, in his capacity as a false god, to also invalidate) is judicial vigilantism equal to Roe vs. Wade.

As this case proceeds through appeals courts, to think another federal judge, one Justice Anthony Kennedy, could be the deciding vote on a divided Supreme Court, recalls the power Julius Caesar had over gladiators in the Roman Coliseum. Their fate was ultimately determined when the emperor turned his thumb up or down. At least Caesar, on occasion, was responsive to public opinion. Today, too many federal judges act more like dictators when it comes to the law.

Most great powers unravel from within before invading armies (or in America’s case, terrorists) conquer them. A preacher might develop a good sermon on how nations fare when they mock God.

No less a theological thinker than Abraham Lincoln concluded that our Civil War might have been God’s judgment for America’s toleration of slavery. If that were so, why should “the Almighty,” as Lincoln frequently referred to God, stay His hand in the face of our celebration of same-sex marriage?

There is more than one way to experience bankruptcy. America under the Obama administration is on the verge of economic insolvency, and now Judge Vaughn Walker has joined a conga line of similarly activist judges who are accelerating us down the path to destruction.

We have been spiraling downward for some time, beginning in the ‘50s with the Playboy philosophy that gave men permission to avoid the bonds of marriage if they wanted to have sex. In rapid succession came the birth control pill (sex without biological consequences), “no-fault divorce” (nullifying “until death us do part”), cohabitation, easily available pornography, and a tolerance for just about anything except those who deem something intolerable. Such persons are now labeled “bigots” when once they were thought to be pillars of society.

A nation that loses its moral sense is a nation without any sense at all. Muslim fanatics who wish to destroy us are correct in their diagnosis of our moral rot: loss of a fear of God, immodesty, especially among women, materialism and much more. While their solution — Sharia law — is wrong, they are not wrong about what ails us.

Former Attorney General Edwin Meese tells me, “There was absolutely no knowledge, rumor or suspicion” of Vaughn Walker being a homosexual at the time of his nomination by Ronald Reagan. But if it had not been Walker, it would have been another judge, because America’s problem is not entirely at the top; rather it is mostly at the bottom.

What we tolerate, we get more of, and we have been tolerating a lot since the Age of Aquarius generation began the systematic destruction of what past generations believed they had sacrificed, fought and died to protect.

None of this should surprise anyone who takes the time to read and understand what happens to people and nations that disregard God. A Google search provides numerous examples for the biblically illiterate.

Two in particular stand out: “Where there is no revelation, the people cast off restraint,” which is paraphrased in The Living Bible, “When people do not accept divine guidance, they run wild.” (Proverbs 29:18); and “In those days Israel had no king; everyone did as he saw fit.” (Judges 21:25)

[Cal Thomas is America’s most widely syndicated op-ed columnist, appearing in more than 600 national newspapers. He is the author of more than 10 books and is a FOX News political contributor since 1997. Email Cal Thomas at] ©2010 TRIBUNE MEDIA SERVICES, INC.


I usually don't read these things but this time you hit a home run with this article. I mean you knocked it right out of the park. Lets wake up America because time is short.

Esaa Al-Sahalman

“When people do not accept divine guidance, they run wild.” (Proverbs 29:18)

<strong>Not true.</strong> According to several modern-day studies, as opposed to ancient texts, the least religious countries actually enjoy lower crime rates and a higher quality of life.

<strong>"...belief in and worship of God are not only unnecessary for a healthy society but may actually contribute to social problems."

“In general, higher rates of belief in and worship of a creator correlate with higher rates of homicide, juvenile and early adult mortality, STD infection rates, teen pregnancy and abortion in the prosperous democracies.

“The United States is almost always the most dysfunctional of the developing democracies, sometimes spectacularly so.”</strong>

Sorry, Cal Thomas, I know your article is more "red meat" for the masses, however, most secular societies seem to enjoy a higher quality of life, statistically, than the ultra-religious ones. Facts are, well, facts.

MajorMike's picture

To respectfully add; "More people have died in the name of God than any other cause".

There was a time when the majority of Americans living in the south approved of and supported slavery, legally segregated schools, Jim Crow laws, etc., etc., etc. There also was a time when the majority of Americans felt that women should not have the right to vote. Thank heavens we have a Constitution and a legal review process that governs by LAW - not popular opinion. There will be a decision of a higher court - in this century.

PTC Observer's picture

I think this may be the second time I actually agree with you.

Now if you can only accept the notion that theft can't be condoned by popular vote we could make some progress.

What theft are you referring to that is condoned by popular vote?

PTC Observer's picture

this is a rhetorical question?

No - not rhetorical and I would prefer that you answer rather than CHR. Thanks.

PTC Observer's picture

The fact that you need to have clarification on my earlier comment says everything about how you deal with life in general. Your views and methods are fully revealed in your posts to this site.

"Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place." ~Frederic Bastiat

The only legitimate role of government is to protect life, liberty, and property. Citizens should pay their taxes in an effort to protect these fundamental rights.

In a free society there is no role for government to redistribute property.
Those that take another person's property through force of government democratic or otherwise are thieves. Those that vote themselves provision at the expense of others are thieves.

I do not expect you to understand these concepts; you are too blinded by your “experience” and cultural “insight”. These fundamental rights are independent of race, gender, or national origin.

Hope this clarifies it for you.

Wow! Thank you so much for that 'clarification'. I am so very dense - would you please explain to me what 'property' our government is redistributing? Are you saying that 'taxes' or funds that I earn, when 'taken' from my earnings and 'given' to someone else is redistributing 'property'? Waiting for your answer. (I think I know what you may say - but I don't want to assume) I'm not blinded - but of course I see things through my perspective due to my culture and experience in these United States - as do you. My understanding of 'taxes' is that there is a correlation between taxes and services provided to the citizens that they couldn’t provide for themselves. For local taxes, I don't mind paying if the roads in my community are maintained; my property is protected by a well-trained law enforcement agency; the schools in my community are safe and producing educated students. If I feel that the local government is not providing these services - then I would protest the use of my funds. I feel the same about our national government - and the non-transparency of where our funds are going. However - I would not withdraw my funds to the detriment of the services that are necessary to continue the protection of my life, liberty, and property. I would participate in ways other than 'blogging' to make sure that my 'government' is truly representing me. The most important way is to be an informed VOTING citizen. . .which I'm sure you are. I'm sure that we both vote for those people who have our best interest at heart and have a proven record of taking action that continues to protect life, liberty, and property. . .and when implemented properly - I don't mind seeing 'taxes' used to protect the 'life, libery, and property of those citizens who are unable to do so.

PTC Observer's picture

"If history could teach us anything, it would be that private property is inextricably linked with civilization." ~ Ludwig von Mises

As I said, I don't expect you to understand these concepts. They need no further elaboration. Draw your own conclusions, if you can.

Not that you actually read anything of importance, but if you did "Human Action" by Ludwig von Mises.

<cite>"If history could teach us anything, it would be that private property is inextricably linked with civilization."</cite>

An excellent response to a discussion regarding 'taxes' and services. NOT! I have not experienced my private property, purchased with my hard earned money being redistributed to 'others'. Do you understand Ludwig von Mises and are you articulate enough to explain your perception of the work to someone else? No points for regurgitating concepts. Don't bother answering . . I probably won't take the time to even read your response. Did you take 'debate' 101? Do you know what a country dominated by 'socialism' looks like? Have you been to Cuba? Did you visit 'old' China under communism? The Chinese have taken the 'best' of capitalism and communism and made it work for them. It would not work for us. . .but they are prospering. . . and we owe them A LOT OF MONEY!

PTC Observer's picture

You have just proven my point.

You're hopeless

Thank you!

There you go again---floating supposes instead of answering the real question!

You know he means that no law can be violated even if the majority wants it violated....until the law is CHANGED, and it is wrong to violate it until then.

Spleak strate insted of spleaking and spluttering!
(Like Waters and old "I'm 80 years old, you now," as if that had anything to do with his transgressions!)

Waters can't help out a bank using her position in which her husband had $300,000 invested! "She doesn't deserve it," she says!

Amendments to the Constitution clarify an interpretation of the Constitution.
The Constitution does not say we are a Christian nation - but some would want to make that interpretation. The Constitution did not say a male with black skin was a fifth of a citizen - but an interpretation did make that a 'law' until the interpretation was 'corrected'. (Dred Scott Decision) The Constitution did not say only 'white males' could vote - but an amendment to the Constitution clarified that interpretation. We have a political process of making laws that are coordinated with the words of the Constitution. The Constitution is the supreme law in our land - and the Supreme Court decides if 'laws' follow the intent of the Constitution. It will be interesting to see how the Supreme Court interprets the rights of 'gays' to be different from other 'humans' who are considered citizens of the United States.

Thank you for answering my question to someone else. . .and telling me what I 'know'. You are really such a superior human. What an honor to be exposed to your intelligence!

It always amazes me that persons who don't want to interject 'race' into a conversation somehow find a way to do just that.

The white idiots running the section 8 housing actions in East Point made it be known that they were taking applications for subsidized housing which turned out to be just a list for the future 10 years, and over 30,000 women (no men in the photos) turned out to sign up. 30,000!!

Isn't that like saying at grade school over the speaker, "free candy right now at he lobby---come now and get it!" But all they got was an empty bag!

Why would the East Point office do that? There were even people there from Detroit, LA and other places!

Now, I am criticizing the government here for a sloppy handling of that situation, but I'll just bet you will say it is racial on my part! Facts are facts!

Just as 1000s of whites are losing their homes and assets, 1000s of minorities (Blacks, Hispanics, etc.) will also lose what little they have.

Are you on something? Do you view television with your eyes open? THERE WERE MEN IN LINE. One man was interviewed. I agree, very poorly handled. What is racial about that? In your mind, only 'whites' work for the government in East Point? You are sick. Get help. The truth that I garner about this situation is that poor people don't trust the 'government' either.

Cyclist's picture

[quote=Davids mom]Are you on something?[/quote]

We have been trying to figure that one out for the last 3+ years!!!!

Caution - The Surgeon General has determined that constant blogging is an addiction that can cause a sedentary life style.

Who is "WE"? Three years?

Cyclist's picture

You know. No need to be sly you old goat. &#9786;

Caution - The Surgeon General has determined that constant blogging is an addiction that can cause a sedentary life style.

I said I saw NO MEN in a picture, not TV, of a large crowd there!
The TV people said there were in addition to women wanting the forms, many hangers-on around just to make a crowd larger. Also, the White lady in charge said about 20,000 of the 30,000 were just there to support!

She said the thing was a success and everyone got a form who wanted one.

You know, I think I remember you making these same kind of arguments some time ago about a party!

The first thing to do to correct bad situations is to admit they are bad!
I really do have more to do than argue with you when you are obviously procrastinating about everything. Just like Charlie!

. . and I'm not procrastinating about anything. IT was an unbelievably bad situation. It is obvious that the majority of citizens in East Point who would need Section 8 housing would be 'black'. It is obvious that citizens throughout our country are having difficulty securing and maintaining adequate housing for their families - regardless of their color. I do not waste my time 'arguing' with you - I only express my opinion based on the facts as I see them. Please don't waste your time reading my opinion since you have stated that you find my sharing 'incomprehensible'. Have a nice day.

I am Inuit Indian---I tell you this because I think that you think I am white or something!
We also resent being called Eskimos!

I get very little from our tribes Casino on the Arctic Circle, but we are trying to join up with the Cherokee who own several.
We do this cause we can't get no good jobs. One does get tired of seal and bear meat also. We steal what we need to eat.
Our tourist crowds are small since the lower 50 has a depression. I do get unemployment compensation though since I don't hunt no more since they won't let us kill the seals nor the white bears. Our neighbors the Russians gave us some AK-47s and ammo so we could really do some hunting now if allowed.

What I need now is some section 8.1 housing here---I can't afford a decent igloo no more. Mine melted down during the recent heat wave. Got up to 20 below and my heater stuck one day due to the whale oil being thick.

I wondered if we could come to the city near Atlanta where we could enter a form for some houses in 10 years? Do they allow ice houses? I guess they will discriminate us there.

Do you reckon they would allow us to replace those Mexicans in Georgia doing roofing, construction and picking food crops? We could learn I think since we have none of that here.
I'll just bet though our houses would melt there in one day!

Well you see DM most of those things about freedom you mentioned had to be corrected with a CHANGE to the Constitution!

Our "Founding Fathers" never even considered freeing slaves, women voting, segregation, or even letting non-landowners vote!

They weren't Christians but Deists!

If we let the states decide things instead of the Constitution, then we might have 50 laws dealing with schools, homosexuals, non-Christians, hang other religions on sight, any kind of regulations (licenses, etc,), maybe even 50 different wars with 50 different countries!

WinstonCourt's picture

You would think these public servants, government and the courts would be swift in moving away from all this and their ignorance and demonstration of lack of education. It is apparent, from their statements and decisions they were, and perhaps still are, ignorant to the simple fact that God gave marriage to man in a time predating government and courts. They, government and the courts, are best to obey their own ends and workings and leave marriage alone for their claim of there being a separation of church and state. The book of Genesis, a compilation of oral traditions handed down since antiquity and the apparent beginning of man, and finally recorded by Moses, around 1440-1400 B.C., is the strongest evidence of their, government and courts, lack of authority to be involved in marriage. Have things worsened to the point they can no longer even recognize their own ignorance and errors? Then surely, the times written of, about satan taking rule, are here upon us! Did they decide that the word of God is subject to their interpretations, decisions and rulings? Are our courts now above God?
Besides, there is no inequality, as this article points out:

<strong>"...satan taking rule, are here upon us!"</strong> Oh yes, if the gays get married, satan will take over. Like when those pesky women wanted the right to vote, and blacks wanted to ride in the front of the bus or drink from a public water fountain. Yes, you are such a loving christian, Winston. Do you really follow your bible? Do you stone your children when they talk back to you? Does your wife/partner sit silent in church and not speak? Do you eat shellfish or bacon? Do you slaughter a goat in your backyard when you piss off god?

And according to your bible, god created "man" in his own image....and this includes the gays and lesbians. Could it be that god was gay? Maybe Eve even had a sassy gay friend in the Garden of Eden:

Did you get Ozzie Osbourne's permission to use his picture?

I don't think Ozzie would care if you married a jack-ass!

TinCan's picture

That wasn't a proposal you just made was it?

PTC Observer's picture

At least your avatar and your words match.

It is impossible for me to understand how "conservatives" and Libertarians, etc., can preach constantly that they wish no regulations from the government and yet that apparently doesn't apply to anything that they want regulations to apply!
I don't see where ANY regulations are necessary for such things as gay marriage. I certainly don't want to participate with them in their strange behavior but I don't want them in jail either, the ultimate result of laws against it.

Nothing but revolutions and wars can come of ANY religion interfering in governments. If we try to satisfy the 10,000 or more religions we face an impossible task there also.

Cal Thomas just don't be a married homosexual! What I have said ultimately means they live together in hiding as they always have, in other words no vote in any state should authorize gay marriage nor ban it.

SPQR's picture

It seems to me that the more radical a left or right winger becomes the more they have in common. After all, a nut job is a nut job

Anyone who thinks two guys or gals being married makes their marriage worse or worth less is already in deep doodoo.

There are two things gays want:
1. Recognition as being legitimate members of society.
2. Ability to have same rights by law as other married couples. Insurance, inheritance, alimony, divorces, adopt children, etc.

I do believe that one can buy insurance, write a will, leaving whatever to whomever, and adopt a child without being married. And one would not have to worry about the other two if not married. No divorce necessary--just split.
Sooooo-no alimony, so what. I don't think all divorces result in alimony either. And no, I don't care who lives with who, but that doesn't mean I approve of the lifestyle. If truly devoted, they don't need a ceremony or a piece of stamped paper to live together--there are many hetrosexual couples doing that now and I suspect many homosexual ones too.

If the difference between living together and being married is just a " ceremony and stamped piece of paper" then why not just lets the homos have it? Many married people consider the wedding day to be one of the most important days of there life and worth fighting for. Just because you don't agree with there life style doesn't mean they shouldn't be allowed to get married.

In case you haven't discovered it yet, a wedding is easy/simple. Making a marriage work is not.In reality, commitment is not necessarily enhanced by a ceremony. I belive they want it because, in their minds, it will be a "legal" justification of their lifestyle. No, I don't buy it. My last post on this subject. And before you ask, my Bride & I have been married for 41 yrs and have 2 adult children.

Too many heterosexuals who had the 'marriage' ceremony ended up in divorce. I have no desire to know about the bedroom habits of other humans. Many homosexuals have had committed relationships for more than 41 years. There was a time when it was 'unlawful' to marry someone of a different 'race'. Do unto others, as you would have others do unto you. Think about it.

zoes's picture

If we could come up with another word for 'marriage', I sincerely believe this would be okay. Civil Unions accomplish all that you are suggesting gay couples are seeking. I wonder if using 'marriage' strikes fear that the government will require religions to perform these ceremonies?


"Beauty is in the eye of the beholder and it may be necessary from time to time to give a stupid or misinformed beholder a black eye." Miss Piggy

Think for once!

If one has health insurance at their work, then the other is covered also if married----not if just living together!

Must I explain everything else to you?

Wrong! There is usually a choice of "individual"or "family" coverage-it is not automatic that both are covered solely because of being married.

You are STILL not thinking!!
When a homosexual couple living together try to have both covered with the one working's insurance, the company will say NO that they are NOT the spouse!
With a law where the second non-working or working with no insurance person is covered when requested then they will be happy to get the same privilege as all married couples!

Gracious! Your thinking is fogged with being against this. If you don't want them to have that privilege----just say that!

So how would you know about your supposd denial? Got some personal experience? My guess is that you personally don't know squat about insurance problems experienced by gay couples or individuals. Sources pls.

When wrong say, "read the book," as does "Fair Tax," idiots---and there is nothing clear there to read!

No, no experience, but I do read something once in a while other than NASCAR magazines and Gun & Country!

NUK_1's picture

Here's the only part of the article that I found to be "informative":

[Cal Thomas is America’s most widely syndicated op-ed columnist, appearing in more than 600 national newspapers.]

That's kind of scary and also sad. Even for op-ed pieces, he's pretty much of a dimwit and there are many better columnists who have similar perspectives and can write instead of blather a lot of fundie crap.

Why do conservatives hate freedom so much? Is allowing people to live like they want without harming others really that threatening?

SPQR's picture

I've always wondered If Ellen Degeneres and other people in her position file tax as married or single. Perhaps married on state ( California) but single on federal. Or maybe they just file as either depending on the financial advantage. The conundrum goes on and on.

I doubt Ellen's mate works at all! Wouldn't be feminine enough! She is a multi-millionairess!

Ad space area 4 internal