As we come to the close of a very contentious primary season, i.e., a very normal primary season, the Harris County Republican Party has let its crazy uncle out of the basement and he did exactly what crazy uncles do – wreak havoc. In doing so, he has provided those of us who believe in the U.S. Constitution with an opportunity to demonstrate our belief in that unique document. Or, we can continue to proclaim our belief in it while our actions prove otherwise.
The Crazy Uncle – Dr. Steve Hotze
On Friday, someone at the HCRP unlocked the basement and gave Dr. Steve Hotze the keys to the HCRP email list. Whether it was Chair Jared Woodfill or his hired lackey John Griffing doesn’t matter – the guy got out of the basement and embarrassed himself and the party. On the off chance that you might not have read or heard of the crazy uncle’s remarks in relation to a federal judge’s ruling on gay marriage, here they are, in all their glory:
“This is an astonishing example of judicial activism and a violation of the separation of powers. Whatever the personal views of Judge Garcia, he does not have the power to makes laws. Our Founding Fathers would be furious to find out that the Constitution was being interpreted to allow sodomites to marry,” stated Dr. Steve Hotze.
Suddenly the whole internet was full of noise because he used the word sodomites. Methinks that neither the crazy uncle nor the people yelling and screaming about his remarks actually know the meaning of the word – if they did, they’d probably laugh it off because I’d guess that few people in the country would be allowed to marry. But I suppose that people know what Hotze intended by that statement. If not, he changed it up in an email he sent under his own group’s name, Conservative Republicans of Texas Saturday:
“This is an astonishing example of judicial activism and a violation of the separation of powers. Whatever the personal views of Judge Garcia, he does not have the power to makes laws. Our Founding Fathers would be furious to find out that the Constitution was being interpreted to allow homosexuals to marry,” stated Dr. Steve Hotze.
Okay, so the guy means homosexuals, presumably male and female alike. The only reason this episode is worth talking about is because someone, Woodfill or Griffing, allowed it to go out under the party’s banner. If that mistake costs Woodfill the Chairmanship of the party, so be it. You might say he earned it.
What does the U.S. Constitution say?
That’s the easy part but we need to start with the Declaration of Independence to understand the issue in total.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
That would be ALL MEN. Men in this case being mankind. We are all created equal, even if some of us may have different skin colors, different color eyes, be right or left handed, more or less intellectual ability, different sexual orientation: we are still all created equal.
The Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
So regardless of the particular attribute by which the majority of society may point to and say “You’re different!”, all of us, as citizens of the United States, have the right to equal protection under the Constitution.
The time has come for marriage equality
We do not live in a theocracy. Our country is not a church. And that is by design. The Founders of this country insisted upon religious freedom. Obviously, the religious beliefs, or lack thereof, of every voter inform our laws through the people they elect to represent them. But the Constitution guarantees that the majority of voters in any state cannot override the basic protections outlined in the Fourteenth Amendment for any minority group – to do that would require another amendment to the Constitution.
It is time to recognize that homosexuals have the same rights as any other citizen. I suppose that states could simply stop recognizing all marriages, like a state representative in Oklahoma is attempting but that seems to be rather extreme. Short of that, all citizens should be treated equally under the law.
The Argument of the Federal Judges
Chairman Woodfill does himself no favors when he describes a federal judge as a “petty would-be dictator” in the same email that featured the HCRP’s crazy uncle. The judge may be an “activist judge” or he may not be – I suspect that some day soon the U.S. Supreme Court will say not, but we’ll have to wait on that. For now, here is his argument:
“After careful consideration, and applying the law as it must, this Court holds that Texas’ prohibition on same-sex marriage conflicts with the United States Constitution’s guarantees of equal protection and due process. Texas’ current marriage laws deny homosexual couples the right to marry, and in doing so, demean their dignity for no legitimate reason. Accordingly, the Court finds these laws are unconstitutional and hereby grants a preliminary injunction enjoining Defendants from enforcing Texas’ ban on same-sex marriage,” United States District Judge Orlando L. Garcia said in a Feb. 26 ruling.
That doesn’t sound like an activist or a petty would-be dictator. It sounds like a man trying to follow the law and apply it equally to all citizens. Recently, five other judges have come to the same conclusion.
Freedom and liberty strengthen our nation
Your marriage is not under attack. The institution of marriage is not under attack. What is under attack is the oppression of a minority of citizens in the United States. And that oppression should not be acceptable to anyone that believes in the Constitution. Nor should it be acceptable to anyone in the Republican Party, a party that traces its roots back to Abraham Lincoln and the abolition of slavery. A party that once claimed Martin Luther King, Jr. as a member. We must be the party of freedom and liberty for all people.
A press conference featuring the crazy uncle
Unfortunately, it looks like Chairman Woodfill will allow the crazy uncle to represent the HCRP again at a press conference tomorrow at 10 am at party headquarters. As a supporter of Woodfill in this election, that is disappointing but will not sway my vote – the stakes are too high to put someone in charge that, in my view, will be detrimental to the future of the party. Traditional marriage is a firm plank in the party platform and as Chair of the local party, a case can be made that it is his responsibility to defend the platform. As I have maintained throughout this primary, being the spokesperson for the party if at least half the job and Jared does it well. My hope is that Jared’s eyes open and he begins to understand that this issue has nothing to do with his faith, the faith of the crazy uncle, or anyone else’s faith.
This issue is, wholly and simply, about the U.S. Constitution and the equal protection of all of the citizens of the United States. You are free to have whatever religious views you wish on any issue, including this issue. That is also in the Constitution.
HCRP leaders should boycott this press conference
The email advertising the press conference reads:
On Monday morning, March 3, 2014, at 10 am, a news conference will be held at Harris County Republican Party (HCRP) Headquarters, 3311 Richmond Ave., Suite 218, where local Republican leadership, including party workers and public officials, will stand shoulder to shoulder with people of faith to denounce the lawless ruling of a federal court seeking to impose the whims of unelected judges on the people of Texas.
I hope that doesn’t happen. I hope that the only two people behind the microphone are Jared and the crazy uncle. In fact, I wish that Jared would cancel that press conference and focus on winning his election.
I understand that is not going to happen. Some elected officials believe that their faith requires them to oppress this minority group. Some elected officials would rather not be there but will bow to pressure from the crazy uncle because he has such widespread influence in the party.
But know this. The days of the crazy uncle having that kind of influence are waning. We saw it at the last meeting of the HCRP Executive Committee where precinct chairs bucked the leadership. We are going to see much more of that in the future. There is a chorus rising in the party from people that believe in freedom and liberty.
For those of you saying that you are going to quit the party if the crazy uncle doesn’t go away, I say stand your ground. For those of you chastising me for supporting Jared and saying that you are going to quit the party if he wins, I say stand your ground. I promise you that if Paul Simpson wins, I will stand my ground. Sometimes, doing the right thing takes you out of your comfort zone. Trust me, it does. But discomfort is no excuse for not doing the right thing.
Now is not the time to run. Now is the time to fight. Don’t let the courage of Chris Busby go to waste. If you believe, as I do, that all citizens should be able to participate equally in all of society under the law, stand your ground. We will win this fight. If you abandon your post and allow the Republican party to wither away, you are allowing the crazy uncle in the basement and enemies of freedom and liberty to prevail.
And that is simply not an option.
Bravo, Mr. Jolly!
Unfortunately the crazy uncles outnumber the rational and reasonable in the state GOP right now.
The GOP has apparently suffered a mental breakdown and it is driving people away from the party. I was not only a reliable conservative vote for twenty years but was also active in the local party.
I will vote in the GOP primary this year mainly to cast a vote against the nuts. But it may be the last. I cannot in good faith support rampant ignorance, biotry and abject stupidity.
If this madness continues Texas can not turn blue fast enough for me.
Great post, David
Unfortunately, too many people — left and right alike — read only those parts of the Constitution that confirms their own position and ignore the inconvenient parts.
I’ve been saying for years that in a society that respects property rights, equality under the law, and freedom of association, legalization of same-sex marriage is inevitable. The train has left the station.
David,
First of all, let me commend you for your evaluation of Dr. Hotze. He is, has been, and (probably) will continue to be a blight on our local Republican party. If Jared Woodfill continues to associate with him then I will no longer support Mr. Woodfill.
On the question of marriage – I totally support the right of every single adult in the US to marry. Marriage, and the family it creates is the foundational bedrock of civilization. And, our society will continue to decline as we devalue the core structure of the family.
However (you knew this was coming, right?) for all of recorded history, every single civilization and culture worth noting has defined marriage as the union of a man and a woman. Even in societies where there has been a sub rosa acceptance of homosexual activity, marriage has always been a man and woman thing.
Most studies put the homosexual population of the US at about 5{997ab4c1e65fa660c64e6dfea23d436a73c89d6254ad3ae72f887cf583448986}. And, recent polls suggest that a minority of those homosexuals actually want to marry. This isn’t about equality, or discrimination – this is about a small minority wanting society’s approval and approbation for their sexual activity.
If we go down this path, it will be only a few years before we see the same pressure to approve polygamous marriages (after all they “love” each other!), widespread prostitution (it’s her body – who are we to tell her she can’t sell it if she wants!) and the total dissolution of the family as a cultural foundation.
So, just to reiterate, I’m not advocating discrimination in any way. I’m not saying that homosexuals are 2nd class citizens, I’m simply saying that marriage is defined as the union of a man and a woman.
Football is played using an oblong ball (technically an oblate spheroid, but I digress) you can walk onto a football field with a basketball and force everyone to accept it simply because you have an aversion to oblong objects.
…”this is about a small minority wanting society’s approval and approbation for their sexual activity.”
Why should they have too ask you for approval?
“Polygamous marriage” existed from the beginning of the institution of marriage, so when someone says “traditional marriage”, I’m not sure how they exclude the type of marriage that Abraham, Moses, David, Solomon, etc. engaged in…
But that’s immaterial. There is a difference between marriage as recognized by a church, synagogue, or mosque, and the contractual marriage that is recognized by the state — a contract based on property rights, freedom of association, and equality under the law.
Note that the original game of football is very different from what was played 100 years ago, and at its beginnings, it was almost nothing like the game today. As times have changed, the game changed to meet new contemporary realities — whether it was changing the shape of the ball (the original was less oblong), equipment (adding pads, helmets, etc.), specialization, or participation by minorities, the game has changed considerably.
The “definition” of nearly everything changes over time. Allowing more people to participate in something doesn’t degrade it for anyone else — nobody’s own marriage will suffer because someone else is participating.
Just yesterday, I was talking with a campaign volunteer for one of the CD36 races who was handicapping the HD129 race. Being in that race, I was interested in what he had to say.
One of the things he had to say was that Chuck Maricle would not make the runoff, “Because no pro-gay candidate will make the runoff out of HD129.”
The people who support “homosexual marriage” or whatever they call it at the moment can not even define what marriage is.
Marriage existed long before the state and provides one of the strongest walls that limit government omnipotence. A wife can not be forced to testify against her husband because such a thing would be as absurd as requiring a man to testify against himself. Before a house is trespassed against a warrant must be secured in order to protect the bed, hearth and family. An inheritance between a husband and wife would be as absurd as taxing someone from passing a piece of property between his left and right hand. The children are the sacred responsibility of the mother and father, not to be mindless receptive avatars of the glory of Big Sister. It is the duty of the family to raise up children strong in body, mind, and soul.
As marriage has long been a main limiter of total government power, those totalitarian governments, who claim the state has no boundaries, but has total control within its domain, has sought to destroy it.
The family is attacked in every totalitarian government. It was attacked in Nazi Germany, it was attacked in Soviet Russia.
A chief plank of the Communist Manifesto is the “vanishing” of the family!
I know little of the Dr. Hotze but I think it is absurd for anyone with a passing introduction of 20th century history to not recognize this effort to redefine marriage as another attempt by a government that wishes total compliance to eradicate a long-standing barrier.
The family is under attack. Your family is under attack. A man can divorce a woman and leave her support-less and ruined without so much as an admission of fault, well the court declared it no-fault. One person of the family can send in men with guns and robes to unilaterally take away your home, your automobile, your tools of livelihood, your right to self defense, and your children, and your dog, within a matter of days on the basis of unprovable allegations. 62,000 children under 18 in Texas are surviving split between two divorced homes. The out-of-wedlock birth rate is reaching 40{997ab4c1e65fa660c64e6dfea23d436a73c89d6254ad3ae72f887cf583448986} of all births. Many of these unfortunate bastards will fall into the pit of absolute government dependence, with an greedy carnivorous bureaucracy eager to redistribute for them, providing they get their skim.
The family is under attack. It always comes under attack by any government that wants total control.
Marriage as recognized by the state is a contract between two individuals that largely defines property rights and other privileges. To the extent that this contract is a check against state power, extending this right of contract to other people would seem to further limit, not expand state power. Divorce, as legally recognized, is simply a legal dissolution of that contract. Would couples be better off if their right of association — or in this case, disassociation — was limited? I fail to see how that would be an improvement.
Extending the eligibility for people to engage in voluntary association and have that recognized by the government does nothing to erode other such associations, nor is it an “attack” on anyone. Removing government prohibitions is not extending government control; quite the opposite. Recognizing that same property rights of inheritance between husband and husband does nothing to denigrate that inheritance right between husband and wife. Telling two men or two women that the government will not recognize their marriage contract does nothing to increase the number of out-of-wedlock births or the size, scope, and expense of the welfare state.
Mr. Smith,
Thank you for taking the time to thoughtfully respond.
To try to understand where you are coming from so we can have a proper meeting of the minds please let me know your thoughts on the following taken from your response:
What is marriage? What is a contract? What is the state? What are the power of the state? What are the duties of the state? What is the state’s role in marriage? What is freedom of association?
Not being facetious but I find often when two people discuss such matters they often talk past each other and I would hate for myself to be unable to communicate clearly.
BJ I have been watching this tidal wave for a few years now and I can somewhat see both sides… ( I have Gay family members) but I think that the guy from Duck Dynasty’s comments about putting ones ‘thingy’ in an anus rather than a vagina was a bit of a shock… but after further pondering, it occurred `to me, that that aspect of the whole situation, is never even brought up. The old fashioned notion of deviancy is being quickly replaced with anything goes… I realize at this point in the tidal waves progress over the shores of tradition is such that pointing out the obvious is like The king with no clothes not being noticed by the general populace. I get what the political scene is like when a stark comment is made, but I have to say, I hate where we are at the present time.
In order to prevail in the appeal of the court’s ruling, the state of Texas will need to show that it has a rational interest in continuing to discriminate against same sex couples. Fearful, slippery slope arguments are insufficient because they lack factual basis. Also insufficient is “but my God wants me to discriminate!” (Although that does work well in theocracies such as Iran.
The state can not force a person to “accept” another person’s relationship any more than it can force a church to conduct their wedding ceremony. So this is yet another irrational argument based on fear. But I’ve heard it many times, and if you recall, the same irrational argument was used in the 60s in the failed attempt to justify prohibition of mixed race marriages.
But the most absurd (and inadmissible) argument I’ve heard in favor of government treating our fellow human beings as second class citizens comes directly from the Texas Republican party platform:
The sooner the party is rid of Hotze the healthier we will be. As I have said many times I can agree to disagree on fellow conservatives on marriage if it is simply that their core value is the traditional defintion of marriage. I can’t abide people who would actually disrespect the GLBT community, or anyone else for that matter. Hotze is in the latter category. I hope that if Jared Woodfill wins again he can find himself in the former category. Thank you David for taking this bold stand in favor of equality.
Is there a list of the candidates who ignored your advice and attended the press conference today? I am fairly sure Chris Daniel and Paul Bettencourt were present.
Face it, everybody. Politics is a game of numbers. GLBT voters are some of the most politically active people around. They are going to vote AND WORK for somebody and I would rather it were GOP candidates. Ronald Reagan said that anybody he agreed with 80{997ab4c1e65fa660c64e6dfea23d436a73c89d6254ad3ae72f887cf583448986} of the time was his friend. I am as conservative a Christian as just about anybody you know, but the GOP is not a church. Meanwhile Putin invades the Ukraine and Obama mutters something about a red line. It’s time we all looked at the big picture instead of chasing each other around a palm tree until we melt into a puddle of butter.
Does equal protection of the law mean every law must treat each group of people the same? Not even heterosexual marriages are uniformly enforced in the US–does the age of consent differ from state to state?