Ever since the Summer of 2003, many conservatives abandoned their principles of constitutionally limited government and individual freedom. They metamorphosed into "New Liberals," pushing hard for a Federal Marriage Amendment. In the process of their conversion, they began committing hypocrisy after hypocrisy -- to the chagrin of true conservatives.
Such "New Liberalism" began solidifying after the U.S. Supreme Court had decided the Lawrence v. Texas case on June 26, 2003. The Court decided that a State may not violate the "right to privacy" of consenting-adults from doing that which other consenting-adults are not also disallowed.
Subsequently, "New Liberals" became absolute big government advocates when the Massachusetts State Supreme Judicial Court decided the Goodridge v. Department of Public Health case on November 18, 2003. In that case, the Massachusetts Court determined that limitations in their State's government marriage laws were not allowable because of their State's constitutional requirement for equality under the law for all individuals.
After Lawrence v. Texas, the "New Liberals" argued for "States' rights," claiming that the Court had therewith violated Texas's right to make its own laws over the individuals. That was a backward use of the normally conservative position of defending the Tenth Amendment, however. Such an argument was actually taking the liberal position of defending big government power over the rights of the individuals.
But such hypocrisy regarding the "States' rights" argument did not stop there.
When another State, Massachusetts, through its own Court, later decided the Goodridge case, the "New Liberals" abandoned the "States' rights" argument altogether. They called for the Federal Marriage Amendment even that much more vehemently to deny any notion of "States' rights."
And that, too, was not their only liberal hypocrisy regarding the Tenth Amendment (from which comes the "States' rights" argument).
Immediately after Lawrence v. Texas, "New Liberals" cried out that the "right to privacy" is not explicitly written in the Constitution. Again, they misapplied the Tenth Amendment, trying to suggest that the Court has no authority to rule on that matter.
The Ninth Amendment answers that absurd argument. Specifically, individuals' rights do not have to be so constitutionally codified. Besides, the last clause of the Tenth Amendment clearly says, "or to the people," meaning the rights of the individuals.
Ironically, though, "marriage" is not in the Constitution either. The Tenth Amendment establishes that government, constitutionally, has no authority to be involved in marriage whatsoever. After all, government marriage wields big government power and involvement over any individual rights. But "New Liberals" obviously ignore the Tenth Amendment when it comes to government marriage.
Nevertheless, they accused the Courts in 2003 of being run by "liberal activist judges," even as such "New Liberals" rely upon a liberal 1878 precedent to support big government marriage involvement.
The 1878 Supreme Court was seemingly run by "liberal activist judges." Reynolds v. United States addressed one anti-polygamy statute, applicable only to non-State territories where the federal government had exclusive jurisdiction. However, those "liberal activist judges" quite liberally expanded that issue to ultimately concoct a nationwide "government involvement in marriage" precedent.
Beyond non-State U.S. territories, that concoction violates the Tenth Amendment because "marriage" is not in the Constitution. As such, "New Liberals," themselves, rely upon "liberal activist judges" who decided that anti-polygamy case which unconstitutionally established big government involvement in marriage.
Many other hypocrisies abound too.
When the 2003 Supreme Court decided the Lawrence v. Texas case, their decision referenced other countries. "New Liberals" said that that "usurped American sovereignty." But "New Liberals" base their support of liberal big government involvement in marriage specifically because of the aforementioned Reynolds v. United States case. That 1878 Court's decision did exactly the same thing, openly deferring to the histories and laws of foreign governments.
Many "New Liberals" idolatrously assert that big socialist government must "protect the sanctity of marriage." But not one man in the Bible was ever married "by government." And numerous Biblical heroes had wholly-sanctified marriages to more than one woman -- including Israel, David, and Moses. "New Liberals" thus turn to the false god of big socialist government to supposedly "protect" something which the Bible never once used (i.e., government marriage) and to define doctrine in a way which the Bible never defined it (i.e., "one man, one woman").
"New Liberals" used to decry what they rightly called "special rights," sought by homosexual activists. But now, they promote the Federal Marriage Amendment to codify "special rights" for themselves, for supposedly-monogamous "one man, one woman" government marriages.
O the hypocrisies!
The true conservative position removes the false god of big socialist government from marriage. That would obviously prevent legalized "same-sex marriage" from even being possible.
But "New Liberals" are directly empowering the very things which conservatives oppose.
Seeing all this, true conservatives wonder, "What's the next hypocrisy?" Will "New Liberals" one day be supporting "same-sex marriage" too?
###
