Friday, May 30, 2008
Micah Clark
A Gathering Storm That May Ultimately Reach Indiana

The issue of marriage protection and preserving the importance of mothers and fathers in marriage is coming to a boil again this summer.    Next month, California clerks will begin handing out marriage licenses to homosexual couples following a court ruling that ignored state law and a popular voter-approved referendum defining marriage as only between one man and one woman.  As of today in just the San Francisco area 623 homosexual couples have booked appointments to get a marriage license.      Unlike Massachusetts, California does not have a residency requirement which could place many state's statutes at risk should couples return to their home state and demand recognition of their California marriage. Some homosexual activists are already blogging about ways to nullify state and federal DOMA laws using California marriages.

The Liberty Counsel has also pointed out in a new court filing that California's courts have also swung the door wide open to polygamy, the unavoidable next step in the systematic dismantling of marriage.

Apparently, the Governor of New York couldn't wait for such a challenge. Gov. David Paterson (D) has already ordered all state agencies to revise their policies and regulations to legally recognize California and any other state or country's homosexual marriages.     The revisions are estimated to involve at least 1,300 incidents of marriage in state policies including everything from the joint filing of tax forms to the transferring of fishing licenses between spouses.  This is an issue that really should be decided by voters. It is clear that the Governor is trying to circumvent and undermine NY state law, which does not recognize same-sex marriage.  Under his liberal scheme, New York will be the only state that recognizes same-sex marriages from other places, but does not legally allow them.    As the storm gathers, the question remains as to what might happen in Indiana since the Democrat House leadership killed the marriage protection amendment. This makes it impossible to significantly protect our marriage laws until 2012 from any potential lawsuits created by the California or New York messes.

Comments: (1)



Serves me right. I have some time to kill waiting for a shuttle, so I think I'll just take a gander around the internet for a moment... and here's what I find. Micah up to his old tricks.

This is really the key line, isn't it:

"The revisions are estimated to involve at least 1,300 incidents of marriage in state policies including everything from the joint filing of tax forms to the transferring of fishing licenses between spouses."

Micah and his associates have been avoiding acknowledging this point for years, when it suited them not to... namely, that gay citizens, far from enjoying the equal protections of the law and freedom of religion to which we are entitled as American citizens, suffer a spiderweb of discrimination against our households that is virtually impossible to construct piecemeal.

They even oppose recognizing inheritance rights or hospital visition, let alone the measures that enable a couple to proceed through life together without battling some form of silly government bureaucracy every day of our lives, which bureacracy has been removed or mitigated for straight couples.

Now, having conveyed that it is merely the protection of a religious sacrament that was at stake, Micah exposes what we all have always known... that it his determination to block and impede the equal protection conferred by each and every incident... to force gay citizens to appeal to him for every single incident, rather than to the Constitution which guarantees us all as Americans.

Imagine forcing the same on African American citizen and a white citizens wishing to marry, as was done in a prior generation: "No, we're not going to let you marry... that violates our sense of propriety... and instead we want you to ask us for each and every of 1300 legal incidents that would confer upon you the status the Constitution otherwise guarantees of equal protection of the laws."

In my opinion, Mr. Clark is driven not by an interest in the protecting any sacrament; he is driven by an interest in denying any recognition whatsoever to gays as having some form of citizenship in our nation, because he is afraid that we will accept who we are, which he fears will consign us to hell.

But I have another sneaking suspicion, namely, that people like Micah Clark have become so vested over their lives both personally and professionally in denigrating gay citizens that they have a another fear entirely. That fear is that the views... in my opinion, the prejudices.... that they hold dear will come, like racism, to be recognized as deeply, deeply flawed. So they fight not to protect marriage, not even to deny us the rights to which we are entitled as American citizens, but merely to protect their own discredited status as able arbiters of right and wrong. They fight because to lose says something about who they are, not who we are.

It isn't about society's views of us any longer; like the racists of the past, it's about society's view of them.