Posted by: thescoundrel | August 7, 2012

Just Say No More to Government Intrusions

I have been following the recent brouhaha surrounding the Chick-Fil-A President Dan Cathy’s public affirmation of traditional marriage. As has become the standard operating practice of the Intolerant Progressive  left – the extremists, including several Big City Government Officials, rallied around the television cameras trying to bully Chick-Fil-A into a submissive position. No surprise their – Intolerance, Thuggish behavior and fictionalizing History for the cameras has become the mantra of the Progressive Disciples.   In their eyes it is perfectly correct behavior to attempt to bully those who have differing opinion from the Progressive movement – yet you can also be sure that those with opposing beliefs that are not muffled by the Progressive bully tactics will be the recipient of the Progressive wrath. They will be verbally abused. In some cases Progressives will even use physical intimidation, as they did to members of the Tea Party by SIEU thugs. It was great to see that many people rallied around the company and against the intolerance of the Progressive movement for the Chick-Fil-A appreciation day.

The dissent on what constitutes marriage is not a recent issue. It goes back along way. Traditionally marriage has always been a religious ceremony between a man and a woman. Then somewhere along the way Big Government decided to stick their nose in to the religious ceremony. Mostly they did it so they could play God and determine who could get legally married. That way they could apply race based discrimination on the institution.  But as with all things Big Government it was also a great way to create a bureaucracy to keep family and friends employed on the taxpayers dime.  So instead of leaving the institution of marriage where it evolved and belonged, in the religious institutions, the government started taking over the guiding reins.  In doing so they have decided the have the control of who gets married and who doesn’t. Which mean there is no absolute legal right for anyone to get married. So in the end the Government does have the final say on who they issue legal marriage licenses. Does that mean  legal marriage should include homosexual marriages? Not according to those States that have put it on the ballot. It has been constantly defeated even in liberal states. Its only real protection has come from activist judges seeking to usurp the power of the Congressional branches and the Executive branches of Government.

So where do we go from here? How do you protect the rights of homosexuals and still protect the rights of the majority whom  believe marriage is an institution between a man and a woman.  I personally believe the same as Mr. Cathy inferred – true marriage is between a man and a woman. But that does not relieve the government from finding a legal path that would  allow homosexual unions similar legal rights that traditional marriage spouses have. In the end the final direction will be determined by those we elect into office.  Of course if I were in the shoes of the Churches and other institutions whose biblical teaching disallows homosexual unions – I would look to rebel against Government intrusions into their religious institutions of marriage, even if it meant telling the government to stick their marriage license process up their fat government asses.  What juicy anarchy and chaos  that would create for Obama and the Government Politicos to deal with, when millions of couple just tell them “No More” to the government sticking their noses in what has been a religious event for as long as we have been a society. 



  1. We need more government intrusion. Read Levin’s Ameritopia. It has just how wonderful life would be if we deligate our lives and decisions to an elite few.

  2. At our current rate of progressive worshiping, how long until we completely morph into an Orwellian State. Those who worship the Nanny State existence should be worried that they might actually get what they want. Then we can all be renamed under the image of Big Brother activism.

  3. It’s much easier to unanestdrd when you put it that way!

  4. Olihoud, moi je vois cette phrase comme ça:«Ses attitudes, ses réactions, son comportement,bref: sa psychologie me fascine, m’émeut, me stimule.»Ou encore:«Ses attitudes, ses réactions, son comportement, sa psychologie bref, tout me fascine, m’émeut, me stimule.»

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: