The Supreme Court Rules, President Obama Equivocates

Today, the Supreme Court ruled on two key cases involving same-sex marriage. The first case, United States v. Windsor, which involved the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) signed into law by Democrat President Bill Clinton, was struck down as unconstitutional in a 5-4 decision, interestingly enough, with Republican President Ronald Reagan's appointee, Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing and reading the majority opinion. The other case, Hollingsworth v. Perry, which involved California's Proposition 8, was thrown out by the Court, also in a 5-4 decision, on merits that the Court lacked jurisdiction to rule on the case.

Here are my thoughts on the cases:

I'm ecstatic DOMA was overturned, however, I figured the Justices would cite the 10th Amendment as justification for doing so. Instead, I had not realized they were looking at the law in context of our welfare state (I wasn't well read on the specifics of the case, but was somewhat familiar with DOMA), and so the Justices cited the 5th Amendment to strike it down, claiming federal benefits must also be given to same-sex couples in the interest of "equal protection" under the law. So, although I'm happy it was struck down and equality under the law embraced, the reasoning behind it is a sad reminder of how ingrained the entitlement system is in our society. I support the rights of gay couples to marry (for my reasons read: Republicans and Their Half-Baked Individualism), and so I hope they now stand with me in my fight for my right to keep 100% of the money I earn. The welfare state must be dismantled if true "fairness" and "equality" is to become a reality. No special treatment to individuals in a marriage versus those who choose to stay single. 

In regards to the Prop. 8 case, I figured they would throw out the case out, again based on the 10th Amendment. It was clear cut that the Court had no constitutional authority to rule on such a case. I'm very happy the Justices showed the proper respect to the Constitution this time around. What a difference a year makes (SCOTUS Affirms Fascism as Domestic Policy). But even though California's courts have affirmed Proposition 8 as unconstitutional (pertaining to California's state constitution), the proper next step is for the California legislature to sign marriage equality into law (this goes against the will of the Californian people, but there is no such right to vote away the rights of others. That is an illegitimate use of democracy and it has no place in a rights-respecting republic). De facto laws based on court rulings are improper, as the courts' role in government is not that of creating law. 

The President's Reaction: 

In response to all of this, President Obama's administration quickly released the following graphic of a quote (perhaps too quickly without much thought) on The Official White House Tumblr page that was truly bizarre to me. He offered the following false equivocation of equality and freedom: 

(TEXT: "When all Americans are treated as equal, no matter who they are or whom they love, we are all more free." -President Obama) 

Oy vey. Grab this guy a dictionary. Equality certainly does not mean freedom, nor does it necessarily lead to it. If we are all equally enslaved, how exactly, Mr. President, are we all somehow made more free? Being "equal" and being "free" are two distinct concepts. Certainly I would love it if all humanity was equal in absolute freedom, but such does not change the meaning of the concepts of "equal" and "free." Now, admittedly, I'm nitpicking here (which is a lot of fun), but he's the leader of the semi-free world who marketed himself as the first intellectual president. It would be nice if he acted like it.

America Rallies: ABOLISH THE IRS!

As America struggles to regain its liberty, eroded through the decades of bad leadership, corruption, and downright evil (the thirst to control others can't be anything less), courageous citizens from around the country are rising to demand a course correction--the latest of which took place yesterday, June 19, 2013 on the Capitol's West Lawn as part of the "Audit the IRS" rally. I had the pleasure of being at the center of it all, and despite having some minor disagreements with some of the speakers, overall it left me feeling hopeful that America's brightest days are ahead of us.

 The purpose of the rally was twofold:

 

1.) To bring attention to overtly illegal and immoral targeting of groups by the IRS who were/are opposed to the President's leftist agenda.

2.) To rally support for an audit of the institution itself.

 

Now, for me, an audit doesn't quite go far enough. When it comes to the institution that so completely goes against the principles of this country and is so self-evidently immoral, I could not and would not accept anything less than abolishment. That's part of the reason I traveled more than 230 miles to be part of this gathering--to bring the message that the IRS MUST be abolished. To my satisfaction, as speaker after speaker rose to the podium, what became evident is that so many others agreed. Now, there was talk of a "fair tax" (a national sales tax) and such (see pictures below), but that still would be unjust coercion from the government. The government would still be forcibly getting in the middle of an otherwise voluntary transaction between the parties involved. The only appropriate means of funding the government would be through voluntary taxation. Give the power of funding the government to the people! Let them decide how much of their money the government deserves. No individual should be forced to fund a government that actively violates their rights in so many arenas--that's asking them to give a gun to a murderer. Effectively, this would amount to another check on government power. When the government goes down a path individuals disagree with (say arming savages in Syria), they could stop funding such behavior.

 Now to address those who believe most would simply not pay, I ask you to consider these points: The idea that most people wouldn't voluntarily fund their government is to suggest that most people are anarchists. If that were true, how to fund the government would be the least of our worries. If most people were anarchists, society itself would not exist as it does now. And what for the anarchists that do exist? Well, first, their freedom of conscience is protected. Secondly, the more rational members of such a society simply need to shun such people, ostracize them (in a noncoercive manner) from the community for their irrationality. In addition, it also stands to reason that most would certainly voluntarily fund their government (assuming it's a rights-respecting government) because their rights are crucial to living a fully human life. If you voluntarily buy food to nourish your body, voluntarily buy clothes to keep yourself warm, voluntarily buy housing for shelter from the elements, why the hell would you not ensure that the government is funded to protect such crucial and necessary assets as your rights?!

 

Moving on, what I learned on this journey is that the American Revolution never ended. The completion of such will be up to us, we the people. The fire has been sparked. We have an opportunity to base the rebirth of our nation solidly, consistently, and resolutely, on a foundation of freedom, liberty, and individual rights. There will be no excuses this time.