I Have To Disagree On This One!

Kristi Noem, the Governor of South Dakota, is one of the up and coming conservative stars of the Republican party. In fact, she’s been touted as a possible presidential candidate, if not in 2024, certainly in 2028. And I don’t think there are many out there that would argue that she’s not a rock-ribbed conservative.

But I have to disagree with Noem on this one!

After the Dobbs v. Jackson ruling in the Supreme Court, Noem is taking the states’ rights issue to the max. And while I would agree with her that probably 90% of the issues being talked about today are better suited to be decided state-by-state, one of her topics can’t be. Not because politically it would be a bombshell. It’s because it just wouldn’t work.

That is the institution of gay marriage.

Now, let me say, I’ve always been against the institution of gay marriage for a very simple reason. Man does not give rights, and man does not define marriage. That is defined in the Bible as between a man and a woman. Genesis 2:24 says, marriage is when “one man (Adam) and one woman (Eve) united together to become one flesh: Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.” I have always believed that if you haven’t coined a word, you don’t have the right to redefine it. That’s what the Democrats and the snowflake left likes to do. If a word doesn’t fit the narrative, they want to redefine it so it does.

My belief does not stem from a hatred of gays. It simply stems from the definition of marriage and the inability of mankind to change what God has ordained. And that would mean that you have to define marriage as one man and one woman. You don’t have the right to change that. I’m not getting into the whole gay argument here. That’s not my purpose.

Now, Noem has said that gay marriage should be a states’ rights issue because, for the same reason as abortion, it isn’t given as a power for the federal government to decide, nor taken away from states to decide. She’s right on that count. But the fact you’d have potentially 50 differing laws on what marriage is would make it a nightmare. If say, California makes it legal for a man to marry a rabbit, but Nevada forbids cross-species to marry, you can see the problem if the guy takes his rabbit to Vegas for the weekend!

Marriage is one of those things that needs to be defined and held to nationally. It’s not right for a couple that’s gay to be legal in say New York, but then when they cross over to Connecticut, they are illegally married, or not considered married. I find that to be totally out of bounds. And I’m saying that as a person that does not believe in gay marriage for the reason already listed above.

I don’t know how you would police that in the first place. What if a state like Alaska not only recognizes marriage as between a man and a woman, but then makes it a crime for it to be defined any other way. If a gay couple from Washington State (where presumably it would be legal) vacations in Alaska, could they then be arrested just for going to the state? I think that’s stepping over the line.

So, while Kristi Noem and I do agree on the whole gay marriage thing, we disagree that it should be a state’s rights issue due to the inability to actually police and monitor it uniformly. You don’t have that problem with abortion. You may not even have that problem in other areas. But in marriage? You certainly could run into trouble and big time!

Carry on world…you’re dismissed!


15 thoughts on “I Have To Disagree On This One!

  1. Well…and I have to respectfully disagree with you too!

    Are you forgetting about Article IV, Section 1, The Full Faith and Credit…Article?

    That’s why drivers license are recognized in every state! That’s why marriage licenses are recognized in every state now.

    What I don’t understand is why a conceal to carry permit isn’t recognized in every state especially when the right to bear arms is a right protected by the Constitution? But that’s an issue for another day!

    Kristi’s not a hard one to look at either! ; )


    1. What you say is true, which is why the whole gay marriage thing isn’t going to ever get repealed. I don’t see anyone trying to take away something like marriage just because it’s a different state. But you’re right on one account. The Constitution gives us the right to bear arms…the Supreme Court has backed that up saying that yes, individuals have that right. So, why are state laws different? And yes, there’s something about Noem that you just can’t get away from looking at. I’d listen to her for hours debate the best way to bathe a cat.


      1. Dobbs v. Jackson

        Mississippi’s Gestational Age Act provides that “[e]xcept in a medical emergency or in the case of a severe fetal abnormality, a person shall not intentionally or knowingly perform . . . or induce an abortion of an unborn human being if the probable gestational age of the unborn human being has been determined to be greater than fifteen (15) weeks.” Miss. Code Ann. §41–41–191. Respondents—Jackson Women’s Health Organization, an abortion clinic, and one of its doctors—challenged the Act in Federal District Court, alleging that it violated this Court’s precedents establishing a constitutional right to abortion, in particular Roe v. Wade, 410 U. S. 113, and Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U. S. 833. The District Court granted summary judgment in favor of respondents and permanently enjoined enforcement of the Act, reasoning that Mississippi’s 15-week restriction on abortion violates this Court’s cases forbidding States to ban abortion pre-viability. The Fifth Circuit affirmed. Before this Court, petitioners defend the Act on the grounds that Roe and Casey were wrongly decided and that the Act is constitutional because it satisfies rational-basis review.

        Abortion pro or con just a tactical issue. The strategic issue: who regulates abortion? The Federal Government or the States of the Republic. The Commerce Clause of the US Constitution clearly states that States have authority to regulate all intra-State trade. Roe vs. Wade violates/rapes the Commerce Clause of the US Constitution.

        States Rights … fat corrupt bitch piglet Washington Bites.

        Liked by 1 person

  2. Noem’s argument falls apart at several places in the law, all of which have been decided and are therefore resolved. Section 1, Article IV of the U.S. Constitution, 28 U.S.C. § 1738, Fourteenth Amendment (due process and equal protection) at 576 U.S. 644 (2015), Obergefell v. Hodges and Loving v. Virginia in 1967. Stare decisis and what have you. I agree with your take; the matter is resolved and there is no benefit to Noem’s political position to challenge it further. There is no right to murder a child in the womb but in secular law, there is a right to marry whomever you want. Next on the chopping block: polygamy.


    1. Is polygamy still a thing? I thought since the Mormons got rid of it, it was a thing of the past! But it’s wonderful to see so many examples backed up with proof! LOVE reading your replies!


      1. I think most Mormons have given up on it, but there are tens of thousands of Moslem immigrants who have not and still do practice it under the radar. It’s only a matter of time before it’s back on the court docket as “a free exercise of religion” issue.

        Liked by 1 person

      2. Well, if you’re going to put it as a freedom of religion issue, it’s gotta stand, right? I mean, if you can believe that God owns a car dealership in Memphis, you have to accept what the Muslim’s believe.


  3. Enumerated powers to fed govt only and reserved powers to states only. But even though a particular matter may not appear in enumerated powers some things are universal and states should agree on what these universal powers will be and apply them uniformly. .

    Liked by 2 people

  4. Lone… good that you disagree, but as the Constitutionalist I think you are, how, now that the right to privacy has been eviscerated, upon which that right was build in Obergefell and Lawrence, do you justify it?

    Conservatives frequently say feelings don’t matter, that words and the actual rights in the Constitution matter. The opinion in Dodds, written by Alito striking down abortion, said specifically that abortion was not a practice or tradition in the US, or specifically mentioned in the Constitution, ergo, not a federal issue. So the states can do as they please.

    And Justice Thomas in his consenting opinion agreed, even asking for a challenge to the rights of gays to marry in all states. His invitation was based on the Dodds argument.

    If the rights the SCOTUS denied existed, upon which gay marriage, private consenting sex between adults, birth control and interracial marriage all rested, then at a federal level, those rights do not exist.

    Is there another way to understand this, given that sitting senators, judges and attorneys general have all stated those laws should be repealed?


  5. You have NO right to live somewhere and demand other people accommodate or pay for you to live there.
    Don’t like a state’s laws, suck it up or move.

    Liked by 1 person

  6. Did I say if you don’t like a state’s laws
    I learned that from illegal aliens.


Comments are closed.