Current Political Controversies, USA

Any mention of politics always provokes emotional responses, which is one often cited benefit of having a non-political, constitutional monarchy which has nothing to do with actual policy. I do not enjoy the subject but as I have always believed that one can never separate the causes of traditional authority and traditional morality it is something I have discussed from time to time. Currently, I have been asked about the U.S. Senate immigration bill that is going to the House of Representatives and which is dividing American conservatives as well as the recent decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court, particularly concerning the very divisive and controversial issue of gay “marriage”. There are plenty of other issues of course but, as I have touched on these areas before, I am more comfortable doing so again here whereas I tend to keep political or non-related commentaries on another site. So, to start with, we have the Senate immigration bill. The short answer to that one is that I do not like the bill and would not vote for it if given the chance no matter what prominent conservatives or churchmen say that I should. The whole thing seems extremely disingenuous to me, it is the wrong thing being done for the wrong reasons and will (undoubtedly to my mind) do more harm than good.

I say that it is disingenuous because I do not believe for a minute that either the Democrats or the Republicans have the best interests of immigrants (legal or illegal) in mind with this legislation. Both sides pushing for this are thinking of votes and nothing else. The Democrats are looking at voting records showing a consistent trend of Hispanics (mostly Mexicans who are the overwhelming majority of illegal immigrants to the United States) voting for their party in massive numbers. They want this to continue or even increase and so, as far as they are concerned, when it comes to Hispanic immigrants, the more the better. The Republicans, on the other hand, look at how tiny the number of Hispanics are who voted for their guy in the last presidential election and hope that by passing this bill they can attract more Hispanic voters and take the immigration issue away from the Democrats who use it as a way of rallying the Hispanic population to their party by painting the GOP as a bunch of anti-immigrant racists. Rest assured, if the majority of Mexican-Americans were voting Republican (like Cuban-Americans traditionally have) it would be the Republicans clamoring for legalization while the Democrats would have built a border fence to rival the Great Wall of China. For the Democrats at least, this makes perfect sense. The numbers do not lie and, it is true, when it comes to the Democrat Party, the more Mexicans who come to America the better it is for them.

For the Republicans, however, it is not so clear cut. In the first place, they are assuming that Hispanics are single-issue voters and that softening their position on immigration will win them votes. If this passes, they will learn the hard way that such is not the case. Hispanics vote Democrat not because of their stance on immigration alone but because of their entire platform and just because the GOP helps grant citizenship to millions of illegal immigrants does not mean they will all suddenly become Republicans out of gratitude. After all, it was the Republican Party that ended slavery in America and yet the African-American community votes consistently and overwhelmingly Democrat. Thus we are presented with the ironic situation of the first Black President of the United States belonging to the same political party as Confederate President Jefferson Davis. The recently deceased Democrat Senator Robert Byrd was a former member of the Ku Klux Klan who filibustered against the Civil Rights Act, supported racial segregation and voted against the only two Black nominees to the U.S. Supreme Court in American history. Yet, none of this was held against him. His opinions changed along with the platform of the Democrat Party and he ended his career with strong African-American support and a 100% approval rating from the NAACP.

Similarly, Hispanics are not going to suddenly shift to the Republican Party just because they helped pass immigration reform, especially when it is so bitterly contested within the GOP ranks. And, just for the record, if the next GOP presidential candidate is a Cuban-American like Marco Rubio or Ted Cruz, that is not going to win immediate Hispanic support either. By supporting this bill, Republicans are only helping the Democrats by supplying them with even more new voters. They are also under pressure from their friends in the big business community who want more cheap labor for the growing number of low-skill jobs that legal Americans will not do. It also means a bigger membership pool for the labor unions and more potential strikes in the future as the influx drives down wages. However, beyond the politics (good for Democrats, bad for Republicans) it is simply a bad bill. The promises of border security are a joke. A law only works if it is enforced and as is obvious from the number of “sanctuary cities” around the country and the actions of the Obama administration when it comes to picking and choosing which immigration laws to enforce and which ones to ignore, it is pure fantasy to think that this bill will actually increase border security in any meaningful way. Furthermore, the idea that people are going to “go to the back of the line” and learn English and pay fines and back taxes and all that in order to become a citizen is laughable. Why should any illegal immigrant wish to do such a thing?

Think about this: illegal immigrants come here, for the most part, to work knowing full well that they will be “living in the shadows” as the saying goes. They know how things are and they come anyway, so that must mean that no matter how less than ideal the situation is, it is still better than living in the utter failure that is the United Mexican States. They already get free healthcare via the emergency rooms of the country which cannot turn anyone away. They earn a meager wage but more than they would earn in Mexico and, as they are doing this all “under the table” they get to keep all they earn without paying any income taxes. Why would they want to go to all the trouble, time and expense of taking advantage of this bill to become a citizen when all it is going to get them is the right to pay more in taxes? They cannot vote but that doesn’t matter much because every child born here can so the number of new voters still goes up (yay Democrats!) and their community is still represented. Their healthcare is taken care of, their children can go to school, their children born here can vote, they can already get scholarships and government assistance to go to college. In many places the police are not allowed to even try to enforce immigration laws so, there really are not that many disadvantages to being illegally in the country as things stand now.

I also have to mention the support of the Catholic Church for this comprehensive immigration bill because supporters of it (Democrats especially) love to bring that up. The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops have given their support to the bill and Archbishop Jose Gomez (formerly of San Antonio, Texas but now of Los Angeles, California) is one of the clerics who have openly praised the effort to grant citizenship to the millions of illegal aliens living in America. To them, all I have to say is that they should, perhaps, look at the voting records again that I mentioned above. I will assume they have all of the best and noble intentions at heart in supporting this but at the end of the day it means more Democrat voters and, lest anyone has forgotten, the Democrats are the party that favors things like abortion, contraception, gay “marriage”, embryonic stem-cell research and other things the Catholic Church adamantly opposes. Archbishop Gomez even linked this bill to the campaign for religious freedom the Catholic Church launched in opposition to the requirement under Obamacare for religious institutions to provide healthcare coverage for birth control and abortion-inducing drugs. That seems rather odd considering that the passage of this bill will mean more support for the same party that put those requirements on the books in the first place. It doesn’t sound nice, I know, these are generalizations, but the voting record is the voting record. The fact of the matter is, with so many racial minorities voting overwhelmingly for the Democrats in every election, the Republicans have already lost the demographic battle. The only question with this bill is whether or not they will lend the left a hand in finishing themselves off.

Now, as to the gay “marriage” non-ruling from the Supremes, I really do not have that much to say that I have not said already. The only thing I will add is that all of this is not really about the legal rights of homosexuals. Unfortunately, I have only heard one commentator explain what it is really about and that was on Canadian TV and a station which even few Canadians could watch if they wanted to. The fact of the matter is the Democrats do not really care that much about gay “marriage” itself. They do not lose sleep at night in mental anguish that Adam and Steve cannot have their conjugal union “blessed” by the government. No, what is really at issue here is getting religion out of the public square entirely. It is about breaking down any connection at all between religion and elections. Homosexuals could get everything they want without the word “marriage” but that is not sufficient because it is not finally about that. What this is really about is making gay “marriage” legal so that any church which refuses to marry a gay couple can be sued for discrimination and, under the anti-discrimination laws, would lose. They would have to stop marrying anyone or lose their tax-exempt status. Most probably would not risk that and would simply change their position on the issue and stop talking about homosexual behavior being a sin (if any still do). That is what this all really boils down to; taking away the tax-exempt status of religious institutions in the hope that they will be financially ruined and wither away. It is also one more reason, in addition to my own moral beliefs, that I cannot and will not ever support such a thing, inevitable though it may be. Hopeless odds have never deterred me yet.

Those are my views, feel free to be outraged if you like, just don’t make a mess.

Queen Signs Pledge for Homosexuals

In a move sure to cause controversy HM Queen Elizabeth II signed, on Sunday no less, on live television a Commonwealth pledge to fight against “discrimination” against homosexuals and to promote the “empowerment” of women -whatever that means- along with a lot of more general statements about promoting human rights and raising the standard of living across the Commonwealth. Personally, the Queen herself is one woman I would like to see “empowered” but, alas, I am sure none of this applies to Her Majesty herself. Many have cheered this as the Queen taking the monarchy “forward” but I certainly cannot be overjoyed about it. This is something that seems rather baffling, unnecessary at best and potentially harmful at worst. The one confusing thing about it was that this was taken as a statement on the part of the Queen to extend “equal rights” to the child of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge if the little one turns out to be a girl. So were all the news stories about that already being a ‘done deal’ not accurate? This is one problem with the modern mainstream media; they jump on stories they like with such enthusiasm that it sometimes turns out to be a false start. Whoever is advising the Queen on this subject, it must be said, certainly has their finger on the pulse of society. Championing the cause of homosexuals is certainly the biggest and latest fashionable trend among those always on the look out for victims to be outraged over.

This is supposed to be a part of a new coming-together for the Commonwealth, laying out shared “values” and yet, nothing could be more divisive. Will this be likely to please the devout Muslim nations within the Commonwealth? It will surely be a cause for bad press in many more traditional African countries and one place where the campaign to promote homosexuality has certainly not been popular is the Commonwealth Realm of Jamaica where the monarchy is already under considerable threat. So who exactly is sure to be pleased with this pledge? I can think of few beyond the leftist liberal communities of the U.K. and Commonwealth countries like Canada and Australia. Even in those countries support will not be universal and those who do not support it will see it as the monarchy siding against them and their own deeply held belief in traditional values. This is a danger I have tried to touch on before. The monarchy, the left usually says, is supposed to be totally non-political and they are quick to cry foul if the Prince of Wales utters a word about architecture or fox hunting yet when the Queen signs a pledge in support of homosexuality and feminism, this is not political we are told. It starts to look like a one-way street.

Buckingham Palace said that, “The Queen does not take a personal view on these issues. The Queen’s position is apolitical, as it is on all matters of this sort.” But others point out that the Queen requested a public signing for the document which is quite rare. I hope no one opposed to this blames the Queen for it but most of my own aggravation over it stems from the fact that, justly or not, many certainly will. The optics of it will be impossible to ignore. And, as this is a Commonwealth document, I cannot help but wonder who put the matter forward? Who came up with this? The government of “Call me Dave” Cameron has been trying to put the Tories on the pro-homosexuality bandwagon lately, seeing that, as many “right wing” or “conservatives” have lately, as being the way of the future. The same can be seen to be happening in the United States with the rising profile of the libertarians; fiscal conservatives who champion things like drug legalization, prostitution, gay “marriage” and abortion (all of which is detrimental to fiscal conservatism but that’s another story for another day). Yours truly has seen it often enough as there is probably no single subject other than homosexuality that generates more angry comments and “fan mail” filled with 4-letter words. I can call for republicans to be condemned as traitors, hung drawn and quartered and no one seems to care but whenever I mention my disapproval of homosexuality I am denounced as a monster!

That must be mentioned because, were this not the number one issue it is currently most fashionable to be outraged over, this would be seen as just another nice-sounding but effectively meaningless document which governments and international organizations love to publicize. It would be about as significant as a “non-binding resolution” from the United Nations. However, because of the subject matter, it will be highly publicized and talked about endlessly with the Queen being given kudos by some and condemned by others for putting her name to it. The problem is that while it will, I have no doubt, cause some people around the world to drop their support for the monarchy, I doubt very seriously than anyone who was previously a republican will suddenly be won over to the cause of hereditary monarchy and traditional authority because of this. That is why I feel the Queen is doing herself no favors by signing this or that whoever arranged it is no real friend of the monarchy. It is simply a fact, seemingly self-evident I would think, yet which many cannot seem to grasp, that any society which sets “equality” as an absolute good and defines that equality by the standard of everyone being treated exactly the same is not a society in which the institution of monarchy can long survive. Monarchy and equality are antithetical concepts and there is a vast gulf between the two that no amount of pledges or reworking of the rules of succession can ever bridge.

Personally, I have never been able to have anyone explain to me how homosexuals are being discriminated against just as things stand. They are not being physically harmed, laws already exist to prevent that happening to anyone. No one is stop them from doing what they want with who they want, as distasteful as some find it and would prefer they refrain from advertising the fact. The usual answer is that they cannot get married but that is untrue. They cannot marry someone of the same sex, true, but neither can a heterosexual so it is not as though the current law is depriving them of something not deprived to others. After making that point I am usually told that I’m being ridiculous and that it is about the fact that they cannot marry who they choose and the law is unfair because it allows heterosexuals to do that but not homosexuals. Again, not true. No law can enable a person to marry whoever they want. I can’t marry a Brazilian supermodel and yet, so far, very few people sympathize with my plight. This whole controversy, if everyone were to be honest, is not really about discrimination or tolerance or anything of the sort. It is about trying to force people to approve of something they fundamentally disapprove of and that is it.

That shows, I think, which side is the truly “intolerant” one. As much as I disapprove of the homosexual agenda, this does not change my support of the British and Commonwealth monarchy at all, however, I have seen plenty of those who push the homosexual agenda who have very conditional loyalty and if the Queen had signed a pledge that was the opposite of this one they would drop whatever nominal support they had for the monarchy entirely. I would take this as yet another sign of the times we live in and nothing more. When it comes to fundamental moral beliefs about what is right and what is wrong I am under no illusions that practically any of the reigning royals of the world agree with me. Especially those since the Queen’s generation, these are people who grew up in a very permissive society and went to schools and universities that teach the exact opposite of most of what I hold dear. And, when it comes to religion, fading fast though it is in Britain, the Church of England has more or less accepted homosexuality and that is the church that the Royal Family and little Davy Cameron belong to. Most other major churches treat the issue with kid-gloves if they haven’t already reversed position on the subject. It is not the fault of the Queen that society in Britain is where it is. Who put this before her, I do not know but it would not surprise me were it to come from the current government which is led by little Davy Cameron (Church of England) and Deputy PM Nick Clegg, an avowed atheist. Clegg is married to a Catholic and claims to be raising his children Catholic but, honestly, any Catholic who would marry an atheist or someone who supports the policies Clegg supports is probably about as “Catholic” as an Orange Lodge meeting in east Belfast. But these are who the British public voted for and issue like this are not going to change or go away, no matter what the Queen does, until the public has a change of heart. We may ask God to save the Queen, and He will, but it is up to the traditional remnant in Britain to work on converting their countrymen.

Mad Analysis: What Does "Tolerance" Mean?

It must be election time in the United States because moral values so many people couldn’t care less about one way or the other are again at center stage. The latest involves the owner of a restaurant chain who said he supports traditional marriage and opposes “gay marriage”. He was immediately branded an intolerant bigot and the mayors of Chicago, Boston and San Francisco said his business will no longer be welcome in their cities because the owner does not share their “values”. So, the narrative today is very simple; if you oppose gay “marriage” you’re a bigoted homophobe, “intolerant” and that’s all there is to it. So, even if you do no harm to a person, even if you do not slander or threaten a person but if you simply disagree with a person that now makes you “intolerant”? Yes, and even worse today it seems. I really cannot understand it. When did “tolerance” come to mean never saying or doing anything that might cause offense or hurt feelings?

The whole nature of this argument frankly baffles me. By long established tradition “marriage” is defined as the permanent union of one man and one woman. Now, a vocal minority wants to change that definition and when anyone complains about that or voices opposition the retort is that you are being discriminatory by not treating them just like everyone else. What? I’m confused. Of course they are being treated different than everyone else because their behavior is different from that of everyone else. If they were behaving just like everyone else there would be no reason to change the definition in the first place. The vast majority of humanity is heterosexual, if it wasn’t we would have died out a long time ago. Homosexuals are something different and I fail to see how they can legitimately complain about not being treated like everyone else while at the same time demanding that rules, traditions and the meaning of words be changed in order to accommodate their differences. They say they want “tolerance” and that those who oppose them are being “intolerant” but I don’t think they understand the meaning of the word.

Does this name-calling annoy me? You bet it does but only because I would rather not even have to deal with this subject at all. This is why it infuriates me to be called a bigot and a hatemonger and a homophobe in these arguments -because I don’t want to know who is or is not a homosexual in the first place! It would be pretty hard for me to be prejudiced against a homosexual if I had no idea that person was a homosexual and frankly I would prefer it that way. It makes me feel a little persecuted myself that I am not allowed to remain blissfully ignorant about the sexual habits of others. I am a big believer in privacy. What people do in their own homes is their own business. I don’t want to control it, I don’t even want to know about it. I don’t care, don’t know and don’t want to know who is doing what with whom. I really don’t! Yet, I, and the rest of the public along with me, are being forced to address these issues -and I don’t like it. I don’t like having to deal with it and I certainly don’t like being portrayed as the “bad guy” by people to whom I have done absolutely no harm. That seems utterly idiotic to me.

I am not and I am not for forcing anyone to do anything in their private lives; in their home lives. I’m also not very impressed with any law that is practically impossible to enforce as any law regulating consensual sexual behavior would be. In my life I have known quite a few people who were unusual or outside the mainstream but I was always told, since I was very small, that what people do on their own place is their own business and no one else’s. As far as I’m concerned they can do what they want with who they want and call it what they want and it’s none of my business. How can I be the “intolerant” one when I have not harmed or restricted anyone in anyway and would prefer to know nothing about what other people do in the first place? Yet, I am and it all comes down to a single issue these days: gay “marriage” and that, at its core, boils down to one simple, pertinent point: approval. Ultimately, that is it and ultimately that is why I think it is absurd and ridiculous and grossly unjust for the advocates of this to portray me and people like me as “intolerant”. They’re not looking for tolerance, they’re looking for approval.

I don’t even understand how opposing gay “marriage” could really be homophobic. To me, that would only make sense if the law said that two homosexual men could not get married but two heterosexual men could, which it doesn’t because that would be silly. In any event, some want their relationships to have the same legal status as that of other legally married people. Why? You don’t need the government to make a commitment to someone and you don’t need the government to give you a license to behave as you please in your own home. The only reason I can see is that these people want government recognition, sanction and effectively the “blessing” of the government of this country which rules on behalf of “we the people”. And that is where I am forced to get involved -forced- in something I have no desire to. By my vote and by my words they want me, through my government and personally if they ever met me, to say what they’re doing is okay. That is what it comes down to. They don’t just want me to let them do it, they want me, through our representative government, to officially and publicly approve of them doing it. I cannot. I will not.

I do not think this is being “intolerant”. I do not think this is being bigoted or prejudiced. There is plenty in the world I tolerate but I do not and do not have to approve of any of it. What frustrates me is that I cannot for the life of me understand why so many seem to want or need my approval in the first place. The advocates of this change intrude on my blissful ignorance about the private lives of others, stick their actions and desires in my face and demand that I approve of it. When I disapprove, after being forced to make the decision, they call me a bigot! If you find it “offensive” that I disapprove of your behavior, don’t expect any sympathy from me since I never asked you to seek my approval in the first place. I am far from the best person to consult on any matter concerning marriage. I am a confirmed bachelor who wouldn’t get married if you paid me. If I ever get the urge I will simply stop a random stranger, ask them to kick me as hard as they can and then take all my money. It would still save me a lot of time and aggravation. Because of this, some probably think I am not even entitled to an opinion on this subject. Well, I think I do since, certainly with no prompting on my part, the advocates of this change asked me to approve of their actions! They not only “asked” me for my opinion, they demanded it!

Whenever I dwell on this subject I cannot help but think of a scene in “A Man for All Seasons” in which the soon-to-be-condemned Thomas More says that he does none harm, he speaks none harm and he thinks none harm and if this is not enough to keep him alive then he longs not to live. When it comes to the gay and pro-gay community, if the fact that I do not and have no desire to tell them how to live their lives, that I do not harm them and that I have neither the power nor the inclination to force them to stop doing anything they choose is not enough to keep me from being called a bigot and intolerant -I cannot regard such people as any sort of victims or any sort of oppressed class. If the only way these people will refrain from slandering me and my religion is for me to publicly approve of their actions and call what they do something I do not believe it is, sorry, there is intolerance on display -and it ain’t coming from me. Tolerance is not the same thing as acceptance and calling people names when they will not conform to your way of thinking is the exact opposite of being “tolerant”. I'm sick of it and I'm not going to put up with it anymore. I hereby declare myself entitled to ignore anyone who uses such tactics.

A Note on New York "Marriage"

I just wanted to add a few words (no more) about the fuss being made over the recent legalization of "gay marriage" in the state of New York, especially in Catholic circles. Some have complained that the bishops did not speak out with enough force against this, yet few would argue that the position of the Church was and is known to everyone on this issue and now some are calling for what would amount to the excommunication of Governor Andrew Cuomo, who claims to be Catholic and who not only signed the bill into law but actively campaigned for its passage. Go ahead and excommunicate him I say, though of course no one would dare call it that, they would simply urge him to refrain from communion which he should already be doing anyway. However, I do have a problem with some of the uproar over this. In the first place, whether the bishops spoke out sufficiently or not may not be the problem. Frankly, I know many devout Catholic people who no longer pay the slightest attention to what the bishops say. When the bishops take the time to voice their opinion on everything from spending bills to immigration reform, statements on things like the presence of an eternal soul or the true nature of marriage can get lost in the shuffle.

Also, I am a little confused over the calls for Governor Cuomo's "excommunication". The reason given is that he has caused a scandal by taking a public position in opposition to Church teaching while still calling himself a Catholic. That I can understand. However, have not the bishops of New York perhaps also caused a bit of scandal themselves but not "excommunicating" him sooner? He has, after all, voiced opposition to numerous Church teachings before and has been openly living with his paramour for sometime now. Why was he not "excommunicated" for that? Does this not send the message that co-habitation is "not as bad" as supporting "gay marriage" (sorry for the quotation marks overload here)? The whole gay crowd loves to complain about being picked on but in this case, if Cuomo is disciplined for this when he has not been disciplined for his flagrant disobedience to the Church in the past, I would have to concede that they would have a point. However, maybe I am just out of date in my thinking on this subject. I'm still "scandalized" by the fact that two (at least) politicials were publically excommunicated in the 60's for opposing de-segregation but not one Catholic politician in this country has ever been excommunicated for supporting abortion. I would tend to view murdering innocent children as a greater sin than Whites or Blacks Only bathrooms, but i guess that's just me. -Put in your twopence if you have any.

*Update: I have now heard that in at least one diocese the bishop asked all parishes, schools & institutions of the Church to refuse any appearance, any honor and to refuse to accept any honor from any politician who voted for the gay "marriage" law. However, soon after this was modified to include all politicians no matter how they voted. What message does that send? I would be willing to bet that this change came about when they realized that most of those who voted for the bill were from one party and all of those who opposed it were from another and they did not want to appear to be taking a political side.

Mad Rant: Prop 8 Hypocrisy in the Great Republic

As you may or may not know a judge in California recently ruled that proposition 8 which bans gay "marriage" is unconstitutional. I'm sure the fact that the judge is openly homosexual had nothing to do with it. This whole episode is one California has gone through before. First, gay activists sued the state because they were not allowed to marry. The liberal court found in their favor and said gay "marriage" had to be allowed. The people of California were outraged and passed a law to ban it. The gays went back to court, once again the liberal court said the law was unconstitutional and struck it down. So, in the last presidential election, Californians voted to pass proposition 8 to ban gay "marriage" directly. Now, the court has again ruled in favor of the gay agenda. The issue will now go on to a higher court, which will surely rule in favor of the gay activists (being liberal dominated) and then it will go to the U.S. Supreme Court which effectively means Anthony Kennedy will decide if there will be gay "marriage" in America or not.

Behold the face of republican hypocrisy. This is backed largely by the liberal Democratic Party which, in numerous areas, has been trying even harder as of late to make America less of a republic and more of a democracy. Of course, democracy being favored above all does not seem to apply when the majority decides against the agenda of one of the most loyal voting blocs for the Democrats. When that happens "democracy" suddenly gets thrown out the window and the people have to eat, indeed must choke down, whatever dish the ruling elite wishes to serve them. Popular opinion be damned. What is almost funny about this is the fact that their propaganda machine failed them. Voter returns show that the group which put prop 8 over the mark was the Black community, which votes overwhelmingly Democrat in every election. Their support was taken for granted. Blacks turned out in bigger numbers than ever to vote for Obama and other Democrats but in California they also voted to pass prop 8 and ban gay "marriage". Liberals were stunned and so were quickly forced to toss democracy overboard in this area and depend on the courts to force their wishes on an unwilling public.

What people get up to in their own homes is their business and not mine or the government's. Being a big supporter of private property rights I say anyone should be able to will anything they own to anyone they like and should be able to give "next of kin" status to anyone they like be it family, friend, neighbor or "long time companion". However, I will not tolerate and I will certainly never accept any group re-writing the definition of words and long sacred traditional institutions so they can force acceptance (not tolerance) of their abnormality on everyone else. And I use that word purposely because I have seen, like most people, a number of "gay pride" parades on TV and I would call the behavior on display at such events perverse and degenerate if it was being done by heterosexual and even married heterosexual people. If they want tolerance they are not going about it anywhere near the right way. They have tolerance but they are trying to gain acceptance now and when the public tolerates but will not accept they go to the courts to force the public to accept it regardless of their wishes.

This is, of course, nothing new nor is it unique to America. We saw it when Ireland voted against the new EU constitution and we have seen it on-going in Australia after the people voted to retain their constitutional monarchy. The liberal, revolutionary elites always claim to be "for" the people, for empowering the people, for giving the people a "voice" in government yet that always only seems to apply when they can lie, mislead or indoctrinate the public into doing exactly what they want. It also displays a fundamental flaw in the bedrock republican principle of "popular sovereignty". What is to be done when the will of the people is found to be in opposition to what the courts say is the meaning of the document meant to hold sacrosanct the will of the people? Think about that for a while if you want to give yourself a headache. And this, my friends, is a picture of business as usual in the "Great Republic" which is based on democracy, popular sovereignty and the sanctity of the "will of the people". When the people do not do what they are "supposed" to do it will eventually come down to one old man in a black robe named Anthony Kennedy who will decide the issue. Not the people.

And yet they call me ... The Mad Monarchist.

New Face of Free Speech?

Since answering a question from a gay activist that her religion tells her that marriage is between a man and a woman Miss California Carrie Prejean lost the Miss USA crown and almost lost her Miss California title until pageant owner Donald Trump ruled in her favor. In the interim Prejean was attacked and slandered in the most vicious fashion as well as having "racy" photos of her publicized in an effort to discredit her as a Christian. I was on her side from the start for standing up for her beliefs instead of giving in to the tyranny of political correctness. When the photos came out I was not scandalized in the least for a number of reasons. First, the photos were pretty tame, it was under-handed how they were made public and even if they had been even more "racy" I don't care about what mistakes people have made, but what they are for now. Christians are supposed to forgive and never condemn people as being beyond redemption, there are others I could go into but this is not the time. What I find alarming is how this fits in with a world-wide trend that has been building up for some time now.

Carrie Prejean is attacked for giving her opinion against gay marriage. Queen Sofia of Spain has been criticized for the same reason (though usually, thankfully, with more tact). Now, it can be argued that this is totally different because royals (these days) are supposed to be non-political. However, where was the outrage when the same Queen said she did not approve of the Spanish tradition of bullfighting? Where is the outrage when the Prince of Wales speaks out about "climate change" and environmentalism. No one seems to object to royals speaking out on those political views. Yet, have someone speak out against gay marriage and suddenly they are vilified in the media. Why does the effort to silence only seem to go one way? It seems that if you have liberal opinions your freedom of speech is championed and upheld by everyone but if you have traditional opinions you will be met with efforts to silence you, discredit you and slander you. In other words, the modern idea of "free speech" seems to be a one-way street.

Mad Monarchist Salute: Miss California

I have mixed feelings about beauty pageants, say what you will about the good causes they champion it still seems like objectification at worst and at best simply further glorification of the beautiful. I like a pretty face as much as the next guy, but I never met a beautiful person who did not know it and they are usually celebrated enough without winning any contests. However, I have to give credit to Carrie Prejean of California, runner-up in the Miss USA pageants for displaying on national television that her beauty is not just skin deep. In a deplorable effort to politicize a beauty pageant (as liberals love to politicize *everything*) one of the judges; a radical homosexual activist self-dubbed Perez Hilton, asked Miss Prejean what her view on "gay marriage" was. To my surprise, and with the audience booing in the background, Miss California responded, in a very respectful way, that according to her faith marriage was between a man and a woman -end of story. Needless to say Perez Hilton gave her a "zero" for her answer and thus cost her the crown. He later went on his video blog and insulted Miss Prejean in the most vile language and admitted that she lost because of her answer. He said she should have supported "gay marriage" or simply dodged the question. However, to her credit, in a later interview Miss Prejean said she did not regret her answer and that it was more important for her to be "Biblically correct" than "politically correct". I don't know anything else about her, but I can see for myself that she is qualified to win a simple beauty pageant and for giving up her chance to stand by her religious convictions the Mad Monarchist salutes Carrie Prejean.