[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

Is Clinton citing specific religious beliefs that are shaping her position on issues of public policy regarding abortion or gay marriage?

What does it matter if she believes in the Rapture if this belief has no bearing on the issues at hand?

Spence, being inside the inflatable balloon of the political and social so-called "center," puts you at the disadvantage of not being able to have a sense of how your position was filled with the hot air that sustains it. There is a sense of a priori in your acceptance of the "issues at hand" just being there, just naturally or miraculously popping up for Clinton and the politicians to deal with. They somehow merely "evolve" in the nature of things, in the nature of humanity and American government.

The comfortable parameter of the balloon's outer limits, which sustains not only your ignorance of how the "issues at hand" got pumped into your limited central sphere of how things work, not only drives you to disdain the "extremes" of the "fringes" that exist outside of your balloon, but blinds you're understanding of the actual influence they have on the ideas breathed into your plastic cocoon of moderation.

The "moderate center" is merely a repository of the status quo. It does not generate new ideas. It is only infused with them when forced by the "extreme" invasions from the fringe outer world. The evolution of the center is mutation of it by alien ideas forced into its DNA.

But the center is a good and comfortable place to live. For most humans, and most other beings as far as we know, the center is the most advantageous, comfortable, and peaceful neighborhood within the social sphere. One of its monikers might be the "middle class."

But the middle class is not known so much for innovation as it is for its enjoyment of innovations. It swallows up, for its pleasure and sustenance, those material, philosophical, and ideological things produced and introduced to it by those who reach beyond and outside the box of its pleasure dome.

Being as how the middle class is supposedly the group whose votes must be captured, the vote-getters must either promise to maintain the status quo or improve it.

So if the vote-getters have an agenda to promote, gay marriage for example, which is outside the bounds of a current status quo and contradictory to the middle class, the center, they must somehow introduce the concept as an "issue at hand." They must infuse the center with either a passion for the new "issue at hand" or for an acceptance of it on grounds of fairness, compassion, equality, righteousness, even that it is a constitutional right, therefor incumbent on the people to not only accept, tolerate, but to demand that it be so. The new "issue at hand" must therefor become a co-equal member of the status quo.

So, "issues of public policy regarding abortion or gay marriage" as you put it are not merely coincidentals which just pop up for politicians like Hillary Clinton to deal with and "shape her position" on. They are, on the contrary, issues she and they introduce and impose on us and work to shape our positions on. And, until they finally succeed in doing so, it is they who are the barbarians at the gate, the extremists, who struggle to change the "center," the status quo.

Of course, being masters of propaganda, they are able along with a
compliant media to position themselves as the actual center--until they actually become it--the new center.

So this fungible center "evolves" and constantly shifts progressively leftward. New generations, of course, being born into it, accept it as the status quo. And, of course, new "issues at hand" will be introduced to them, as if by some natural magic. And precedent makes it easier, even automatic, that some new mutation will be transfused into their already much mutated DNA.

For an avowed "centrist" this may not be good or bad. Probably, on the whole, good. But that may be more of a dependency goodness as in Al Capps happy Shmoos (Shmoon) in his cartoon series Lil' Abner, than a good society based on individual rights and responsibilities.

Why this constant change which is politically designed rather than naturally evolved?

There is the proposition that it is all intended to destroy the old structure and its various parts in order to convert from a bottom-up, limited government system to an all-powerful but benevolent one. Gay marriage may be used as a means to destroy the concept of marriage and its independent raising of children which is too diverse a method to politically manage. And by that destruction making it necessary for government to take on the responsibility of raising the children, or at least of "parents" doing so as prescribed by government, thus more easily producing future "model" citizens. Enforced and funded abortion policies can be used to limit expansion of population which might otherwise be too unwieldy to manage, and to prevent or reduce births of those who are deemed unlikely to conform and contribute to a managed society. Herding populations into "smart" urban centers is more centrally manageable than the populace being dispersed into sprawling suburban and rural land areas. Imposing cookie-cutter education policies dictated by central government, including common core creates more malleable cookie cutter citizens. Deconstructing the States' power and transforming them into divisions of Federal power creates the unitary central power necessary for an all-powerful State, And so on. All to grow the power of the Central Government. For me, it is all a plain, in your face, transformation of our once constitutional republic to a unified, all powerful, progressive State.

There is, of course, the mirage that it's all still "constitutional." We are made to believe that the Constitution empowers the federal government to grant special rights to special people. And to consecrate gay marriage; to enforce us all to buy insurance; to mandate that insurance provide whatever government dictates, including paid for contraception; that Religion, free speech, rights to bear arms, property rights, exist only in-so-far as government allows those things, and commands many more things through thousands of yearly "regulations."

It is clearly evident, in the recorded history of how the Constitution was finally decided on and written, that none of those above supposed powers of the federal government were intended to exist. And It is all too clearly so, that all the judges must surely know it. And it is all too clear that the history of jurisprudence since progressivism has influenced it, that the judges have lawyerly, as well as according to the whims of their personal beliefs and prejudices, twisted and torn that document into a concoction of incoherent contradictions which have completely reversed the relation of the people to the government.

The idea that gay marriage is somehow protected under some notion in the 14th amendment is a deliberate stretch beyond the bounds of equal protection. Homosexual relations are different than heterosexual relations. If the "qualification" for marriage is heterosexual union, then a homosexual union would not qualify. Homosexuals are not disallowed to engage in heterosexual union. They have the equal protection to do so. If they claim they do not wish to do so, or cannot, then they don't qualify for the position. Nature, if that is the reason for homosexuality, disqualifies a lot of people from a lot of stuff. If two men want to live together and call it marriage, they cannot be denied doing so. But demanding that it be sanctioned by the government as a legal entity and observed by everyone else who are then forced not only to recognize the "marriage," but materially participate in it upon the request of the homosexual couple is clearly against any proposition of equality promoted by the Founder's Constitution.

That the federal government has anything to say about marriage at all is constitutionally suspect. There is this chilling notion introduced by progressive courts that government can legislate if it has "a compelling interest." If the idea that the government can impose itself on you if it has a compelling interest doesn't give you pause to wonder on its power, you're not paying attention. If you think that government is all benevolent as well as all powerful, and that whatever compelling interest it wishes to make you obey is a wonderful thing, you have a bit of Shmoo in you. Maybe a lot. Who's to say what is compelling? Five black robes? The Constitution does not grant government powers derived from compelling interest other than those which are granted to it in its enumeration.

It may be, however, that it has a compelling interest in the propagation of the species. Survival of the State, as well as creating and maintaining a population which it can govern . . . or control . . . depends on that propagation. It may have a compelling, even if not a constitutional, interest in promoting heterosexual union. And if it deems marriage is the best way to raise families, it might well provide some subsidies to such unions. Beyond that, already constitutionally suspect notion, what compelling interest would it have in marriage at all, especially homosexual marriage? There are arguments concerning "love." Marriage is not a requisite to love. One does not marry everyone and everything one loves. If two guys love each other and want to play sex with each other and want, for whatever reason, to call it marriage, what compelling constitutional interest does the federal government have in such a relationship?