Gay Rights, And Why Our Government Shouldn't Be Signing Anything

OK.

Now, one of the issues where I differ greatly from many of the self-described "conservatives" on here, and elsewhere, is that I am a fervent supporter of gay rights, in the sense that I think gays are people too, and thus entitled to equal treatment and protection under the law.

Now, that's been the subject of discussion on here before; do I think gay people can get married?

Sorta.

I don't think marriage per se is properly the province of government at all, as my understanding of the purpose behind the establishment clause (Amendment 1) is that adopting, by federal authority, the definitions of one religion as the de facto standard for everyone IS an establishment of religion, and my understanding for the limits on Constitutional authority of the federal government (Amendment 10) delineate clearly the powers of the federal and state governments to, on the one hand, what is in the Constitution, and on the other, what isn't - and marriage isn't.

So, I think that any legally recognized domestic partnership MUST be made available to gay people as well, because they're people, and entitled to equal treatment under the law. I don't recognize that the federal government has any right to recognize ANY religious sacrament as having legal force, or even pass a law about it at all; but the state governments DO, which is why (despite the fact that I find it grotesque and unfortunate) California's Prop 8 should stand as law.

Right.

What's all that mean?

I believe that the intent and purpose of the Constitution, at its most bare, most basic, was to provide each and every American citizen protection against being fucked over by anybody else - even other American citizens.

This means gay people, too.

And at a federal level, this should be case closed.

But the thing is, our country isn't ONLY governed AT a federal level, nor should it be.

In fact, state and local governments are afforded - by the CONSTITUTION - far greater powers than those afforded to the federal government, regardless of how they choose to arrogate power to themselves.

Now, the United Nations - a body for which I have little but contempt, especially based on their actions in recent years - has a declaration of the rights of gay people.

President Bush refused to sign it, for many of the same reasons he refused to sign the Kyoto Protocols.

President Obama wants to sign it.

And I am infuriated by this.

Not because it is a gay rights issue; because, ultimately, it isn't.

I am infuriated because it is a STATES' rights issue.

You see, a declaration of gay rights doesn't MEAN anything, unless you don't already have them. This country, for all the weeping and wailing done by the loony left, treats gay people better than the huge majority of world nations; hell, there are 50 plus countries in which legally, gay people can be stoned to death in the street because of their orientation.

...So I really prefer not to hear diatribes about how they're so ill-treated here.

But here's the thing.

Once this nation becomes signatory to an international accord, we have surrendered, as a NATION, part of our sovereignty; we have allowed an international body - one with a long track record of its own human rights abuses and failures, corruption, and antagonism to this country - jurisdiction to decide if we are, as a NATION, doing it "right," and levy punishment of some unspecified type against us if they, say, happen to decide that we're, you know, NOT.

And "gay rights" is something we don't HAVE jurisdiction over as a nation, because it is a specifically states' rights issue. It is not, and cannot be (that damned Tenth Amendment again) regulated at a federal level.

What's happening here is that President Obama is planning an end run around the states' rights issue; if he signs the accords, the states will be bound by a decision at federal level - that he had no right whatsoever to make. 

But it's an international thing, right?

I mean, it's just a paper saying we pledge to treat gay people nice, right?

I mean, after all, we were gonna do that anyway, right?

....And look, you don't want to be THAT GUY who says gays should be destroyed, or anything, so what do YOU care if we sign it?

You know what? I don't. I think that discriminating against people based on race, gender, or sexual orientation is evidence of a diseased mind.

But that doesn't mean I want to abandon our Constitution, and its carefully planned limitations, wholesale, for the sake of getting around one of the provisions that says that the President can't simply pass any laws he wants to.

I didn't like it when President Bush did the same type of thing on several issues, and said so.

I'm saying so now.

President Obama's attempts to do an end run around the Tenth Amendment by using an international body as an excuse for abrogating the rights of the states to govern as they see fit within the Constitutional limits is a threat to the way of life in this country.

And it doesn't MATTER what issue he's using as a poster boy to do it.

I'm pretty sure nobody wants cute puppies and kittens to be killed off wholesale, either.

But if you put a gun to someone's head and demand money to prevent the wholesale slaughter of cute puppies and kittens, you're still wrong.