Gay Patriot Header Image

Has Geoff Kors read the U.S. Constitution?

In his latest email, the head of the gay affiliate of the California Democratic Party “Equality California” tells us about “the U. S. Constitution’s promise of equality for all”.  Funny, I’ve read the U.S. Constitution more times than I can count and have never found that promise*.  The framers did indicate that the charter’s purpose includes securing “the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity”.

Save for the Fourteenth Amendment when the word, “equal,” appears, it only refers to legislative voting.  And that Amendment specifies that “No State shall make or enforce any law” which denies “to any person within its jurisdiction.” Not sure how you get from that to a “promise of equality.”

Sorry, Geoff, you can’t read your ideological watchword into the constitution.  It just ain’t there.

Better to focus on liberty.  (More on that anon, I hope.)

*UPDATE:  maybe it’s buried in the various emanations of its penumbrae.

Share

42 Comments

  1. Ahem, …. “promote the general welfare” clearly means redistribute the wealth, guarantee equal outcome and enforce rigid rules of respect for diversity which prove that we are all alike in our differences and different without a distinction in our equality as decided by a judge.

    You missed that, didn’t you!?!

    Comment by heliotrope — August 17, 2010 @ 9:24 am - August 17, 2010

  2. “If” you wanted to be accurate, one could say something like “the Declaration Of Independence’s promise of equality for all”, but I guess that phrase just doesn’t sound as good.

    Comment by Sonicfrog — August 17, 2010 @ 9:50 am - August 17, 2010

  3. Sonicfrog, ok, you’re on, please show just how the Declaration offers just such a promise. Those rights that are inalienable don’t seem to include “equality.”

    Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — August 17, 2010 @ 11:36 am - August 17, 2010

  4. Dan, I was being a bit sarcastic. It is in the D of I that says “all men are created equal”. Yet, this gets manging and swapped over to the Const all the time. I know my comment will open up a whole can of worms, and I’d love to stick around and monitor, but I have to go work now.

    Comment by Sonicfrog — August 17, 2010 @ 12:16 pm - August 17, 2010

  5. Yeah, but, Sonic, the observation that we’re created equal is not a promise, but an observation. And it’s very clear from the debates in the Continental Congress, Jefferson’s writing — and the mood of the times — that the founding generation was concerned about freedom and limiting the role of the state. The notion of a state-mandated equality never crossed their mind. They just wanted it to stop exempting certain classes from obligations imposed on most citizens (see., e.g., Ben Franklin and “Proprietary” Colonies).

    The promise has always been liberty — in the Declaration and the Constitution.

    Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — August 17, 2010 @ 12:26 pm - August 17, 2010

  6. B Daniel Blatt -

    I had the exact same reaction when that email popped in my mailbox yesterday.

    In addition, I also liked his plea that the “cash-strapped” state should be concentrating on keeping police, firefighters and teachers on the job. Aren’t the outrageous salaries, pensions and benefits of police, firefighters and teachers a big reason the state is so broke?

    Comment by Chris H — August 17, 2010 @ 2:01 pm - August 17, 2010

  7. Wonder what he would say to an across-the-board salary cut for state employees. Or would that upset his public employee union allies?

    Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — August 17, 2010 @ 2:20 pm - August 17, 2010

  8. I find it hysterical that a “gay patriot” would be quibbling about the semantics of an email, that at its core is using modern common vernacular to emphasis the rights and liberties all Americans should enjoy but which gay people are restricted from completely enjoying.

    The “promise” of equality lies in both the preamble statement “…secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity…” and the Declaration of Independence statement “We hold these truths to be self evident, all men are created equal….that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness….”

    That promise is demonstrated in the common understanding and the teaching in public schools that Equality is the tangible result of the inalienable right for all men being equally able to engage in Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.

    Our courts, all the way to SCOTUS, our politicians and our legislators use that term that way, thousands of times a year to emphasis the greatness of our laws and our nation.

    The founders imbued few restrictions on their concept of inalienable rights and how those rights are enacted. They established few restraints on how future generations would apply the founding principals or write laws applicable to future society. Had they intended those restrictions they would have written them, but they didn’t.

    You may claim they did but YOU would be wrong! You were NOT there (none of us were) and you are not a constitutional scholar despite the conserva-drag you cloak yourself in.

    Frankly you must really have a serious amount of gay self-loathing if you are going to try and argue and deride that part of the email and that goal of attaining that “promise” as it has been taught and decided by the courts and legislatures.

    Not agreeing with the financial implications and the like is one thing, but to attack on semantics the idea we all have a right to Equality is beneath contempt.

    You seem a very sad pathetic homosexual, please consider counseling to become happier with yourself.

    Comment by laughing_at_you_from_nola — August 17, 2010 @ 3:09 pm - August 17, 2010

  9. oh, laughing, how your name-calling becomes you. My, my, my, you presume yourself to be so wise and so clever and trot out the same ol’ cliché to describe us. Please, please, please, show me just why you call me self-loathing. And use my words and not your prejudices to make your case.

    And then, go back and study the founders, familiarize yourself with their concerns, consider as well the political philosophers and economic thinkers who have written about the tension between equality and liberty. To suggest that he promise of equality lies in the preamble to the Constitution is to read into the charter’s introduction an idea that just isn’t there and pretends that “equality” and “liberty” are the same thing. That is a frightening notion.

    Observing that men are “created equal” is not a promise of equality, but a rebuke to the British notion of aristocracy, then current. The rights identified, the promise of that document, do not include equality, but do include liberty.

    So, you say, we have a “right to Equality” (increasing the importance of that word with socialist connotations by giving it a capital letter no less), please, please, please identify the specify places in the Constitution and Declaration where Madison (as the primary Framer of the Constitution) or Jefferson (as the author of the Declaration) defined equality as a right.

    Those inalienable rights, as you indicates are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness, they weren’t liberty. Perhaps, public schools today teach that Equality it a “tangible result” (whatever that means) of those rights, but it is wrong as to the intention of the Founders.

    Insult me you may, but, well, you do help make my day, making assumptions about my education and attacking rather than engaging.

    Why, I wonder again, again and yet again, why lefties like you, must needs assume conservatives need psychological counseling. Yours, laughing, is an amusing specimen of intolerance and prejudice.

    Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — August 17, 2010 @ 3:27 pm - August 17, 2010

  10. Michael Savage, an American radio host/author/conservative political commentator, stated that “Liberalism is a mental disorder.” On a Youtube video he explains that Liberalism is a form of psychological abuse that needs to be treated.

    This comment is directed to commenter “laughing_at_you_from_nola” and the Leftists in the San Francisco Bay Area, where I live. Thankfully, I think rationally from the Leftists.

    Comment by Totakikay — August 17, 2010 @ 3:51 pm - August 17, 2010

  11. I find it hysterical that a “gay patriot” would be quibbling about the semantics of an email, that at its core is using modern common vernacular to emphasis the rights and liberties all Americans should enjoy but which gay people are restricted from completely enjoying.

    Not at all. Gay and lesbian people have just as much right to marry someone of the opposite sex as everyone else does, as heroes of the gay and lesbian movement like “Bishop” Gene Robinson and Jim McGreevey have shown. Furthermore, gay and lesbian people are perfectly capable of having sex with and enjoying relationships with members of the opposite sex, as both of these individuals demonstrate.

    The entertaining part is that gay-sex marriage supporters like Geoff Kors regularly whine that having whatever sexual coupling you desire be recognized as “marriage” is some sort of “right” and that anything that interferes with it is against “equality”.

    One wonders if they ever realize that those who choose children, multiple individuals, blood relatives, and animals as sexual partners are also denied their “rights” under that logic.

    So tell us, laughing — do you insist that everyone should be allowed to marry to whatever they are sexually attracted? After all, you have stated that marriage is one of the “rights and liberties ALL Americans should enjoy” and that to deny it to anyone is unconstitutional and against “equality”.

    And if not, you have proven yourself to be a complete and total hypocrite by denying to others what you shriek “equality” demands you receive.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — August 17, 2010 @ 5:28 pm - August 17, 2010

  12. Whenever I see Geoff Kors’ name, I think he’s the fashion designer/judge from Project Runway.

    That’s Michael Kors who probably has more sense than Geoff anyway.

    Comment by Bruce (GayPatriot) — August 17, 2010 @ 5:41 pm - August 17, 2010

  13. I probably get at least two hysterical emails from Geoff Kors every week. He’s so consistently over-the-top that his missives have become a sort of entertainment for me.

    He should title them “From the Fainting Couch.”

    Comment by Lori Heine — August 17, 2010 @ 6:14 pm - August 17, 2010

  14. Totakikay, you’re in SF? Will be there over Thanksgiving, expecting to organize a GayPatriot luncheon at that time. Do hope to meet.

    Lori, ditto that.

    Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — August 17, 2010 @ 6:24 pm - August 17, 2010

  15. laughing_at_you_from_nola has piqued my curiosity. What is a “self-loathing gay” and is there some sort of pap smear that verifies the diagnosis?

    I understand what an “oreo” is. That is a “house nigger” who is black on the outside and white on the inside. That is a black skin that thinks for himself rather than run with the minority imperative of “nobody knows the trouble I’ve seen and I won’t let you off the hook ….. ever.”

    But a “self-loathing gay” is too complex for my weak brain. Is that a gay who is trying to go through a nine step program to become heterosexual? Huh? I thought gay was not a matter of choice, unlike abortion. So, is a “self-loathing gay” a heterosexual trapped in a homosexual body? Probably not.

    Maybe a “self-loathing gay” is actually an “oreo” without the melanin distinction. Maybe the “self-loathing gay” is someone who doesn’t share the “inequality” bugaboo and just tends to business instead.

    My inability to understand the “self-loathing gay” concept is due entirely to my str8 category of disability. I picture the people who target the “self-loathing gays” as the Robert de Niro character in Meet the Fockers who feeds his grandchild wearing an engorged tit and nipple nursing bra.

    Where laughing_at_you_from_nola have I got this wrong?

    Comment by heliotrope — August 17, 2010 @ 6:50 pm - August 17, 2010

  16. heliotrope see

    http://www.helium.com/items/1490903-examining-self-loathing-behavior-in-the-gay-community

    or Roy Cohn in Angels in America, that little broadway number,

    Comment by rusty — August 17, 2010 @ 7:39 pm - August 17, 2010

  17. Let me be clear … BDB is not self-loathing.

    Comment by rusty — August 17, 2010 @ 7:49 pm - August 17, 2010

  18. Thanks, rusty. :-)

    Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — August 17, 2010 @ 7:52 pm - August 17, 2010

  19. Dan – Laughing_at_you has taken the same progressive routine as several folks over at my latest Daily Caller piece. In it I argued several valid points for conservatives to argue against the GW agenda and was attacked for being ‘retarded’, insulted, etc. ‘Self loathing’ was not mentioned but perhaps that is the next step.

    The funny thing is that my column specifically outlined ad hominems from the left as a distinct sign that we are winning the battle.

    See the comments here: http://dailycaller.com/2010/08/13/global-warming-lies-damn-lies-and-easy-rebuttals/

    Spot on commentary too Dan on the “equality” misnomer, spot on.

    Posting on this soon!

    Comment by left coast rebel — August 17, 2010 @ 7:58 pm - August 17, 2010

  20. “Self-loathing”, left coast rebel, is the standard reply gay left-wingers offer to gay people who offer opinions at odds with the “party” orthodoxy.

    Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — August 17, 2010 @ 8:06 pm - August 17, 2010

  21. Rusty,

    That link is a doorway to psychobabble on steroids.

    I don’t feel informed so much as amused. Do people really write such things believing they are communicating?

    “Self-loathing gay” seems to be an inadequate phrase for saying something like “dirty birdie.” Can’t the gay bullies come up with something really hurtful?

    Comment by heliotrope — August 17, 2010 @ 8:06 pm - August 17, 2010

  22. Dan – I guess the equivalent for me is ‘racist’ and ‘bald’. The latter of which is actually true. :)

    Comment by left coast rebel — August 17, 2010 @ 8:30 pm - August 17, 2010

  23. “the U. S. Constitution’s promise of equality for all”.

    THERE IS NO PROMISE like that in the Constitution nor in the Declaration of Independence.

    the reference to equality in the Declaration of Independence was purely political,,not social. it meant that every person had an equal opportunity be the leader of this nation as opposed to being born into that position as in England. it was a repudiation of the principle of the “Divine Rights of Kings”

    in fact a favorite phrase used back in the fifties and times be fore to illustrate this was that “anyone could grow up to be president.” it was a phrase used to be an incentive to kids to strive to be all that they could be when they grew up.

    Comment by The Griper — August 17, 2010 @ 10:05 pm - August 17, 2010

  24. Should Lawrence v. Texas be overturned based on your arguments? Should all queers be put in jail or a mental institution? Will that make everyone here happy?

    Comment by grademe — August 17, 2010 @ 10:32 pm - August 17, 2010

  25. Um, grademe, Lawrence dealt with a state law which infringed upon our liberty. While the court got the rationale wrong, it got the result right. Should have worked it through the Ninth Amendment.

    Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — August 17, 2010 @ 10:42 pm - August 17, 2010

  26. “The “promise” of equality lies in both the preamble statement “…secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity…” and the Declaration of Independence statement “We hold these truths to be self evident, all men are created equal….that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness….

    There is no “no promise” implied or expressed in either of the above statements.

    They are mutually supportive and mean in simple english that every person is, at the moment of their creation, created equally. Which means they have the same (or eagual OPPURTUNITY to secure their life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.

    Pretty much it is up to the individual to make this happen based on their abilities, desire, and willingness to apply themselves to acheiving those ends.

    Daniel… Great site with excellent content! I am glad LCR tipped me off to your site. Consider me a new regular.

    Les Carpenter III
    Editor in Cheif
    Rational Nation USA
    http://rationalnationusa.blogdot.com

    Comment by Rational Nation USA — August 17, 2010 @ 10:51 pm - August 17, 2010

  27. with liberty and justice for all . . . a young man named will is getting alot of attention about this phrase from the Pledge and will has stated that he won’t recite the pledge until ssm is granted. . . .

    so I did that surfin’ thing right before bed and came across this

    Francis Bellamy (1855 – 1931), a Baptist minister, wrote the original Pledge in August 1892. He was a Christian Socialist. In his Pledge, he is expressing the ideas of his first cousin, Edward Bellamy, author of the American socialist utopian novels, Looking Backward (1888) and Equality (1897).

    In 1892 Francis Bellamy was also a chairman of a committee of state superintendents of education in the National Education Association. As its chairman, he prepared the program for the public schools’ quadricentennial celebration for Columbus Day in 1892. He structured this public school program around a flag raising ceremony and a flag salute – his ‘Pledge of Allegiance.’

    His original Pledge read as follows: ‘I pledge allegiance to my Flag and (to*) the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.’ He considered placing the word, ‘equality,’ in his Pledge, but knew that the state superintendents of education on his committee were against equality for women and African Americans. [ * 'to' added in October, 1892. ]

    just something more to chew on. . .

    Comment by rusty — August 17, 2010 @ 11:35 pm - August 17, 2010

  28. here’s the story. . .http://www.oldtimeislands.org/pledge/pledge.htm

    Comment by rusty — August 17, 2010 @ 11:36 pm - August 17, 2010

  29. Bellamy instructed children to stand with their hands at their sides, face the flag, and then give a military salute with “right hand lifted, palm downward, to a line with the forehead and close to it” At the words “to my flag,” the children were instructed to extend the hand toward the flag, and then leave it in this extended position for the duration of the pledge. Unfortunately, this salute was very similar to the one adopted by the German Nazi party several decades later. The salute was changed to the hand-over-heart style in 1942.

    The Care and Dsiplay of the American Flag by the editors of Sharpman.com.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — August 18, 2010 @ 2:45 am - August 18, 2010

  30. The “promise of equality” to which Kors refers is the 14th Amendment’s “equal protection of the laws.” Since the 14th Amendment was ratified approximately 80 years from when “the Founders” were drafting/ratifying the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, “the Founders” have nothing directly to do with its tenets, except, perhaps, “the Founders’” broad ideals of liberty, justice, and the formation of “a more Perfect Union.” Your understanding of the Constitution, Constitutional history, and the history of the United States, Mr. Platt, is clearly lacking. You should avoid pontificating with such an “authoritative” tone on subjects on which your knowledge is superficial at best.

    Comment by erquirk — August 18, 2010 @ 4:05 am - August 18, 2010

  31. Excuse me, I meant “Mr. Blatt” above. My apologies.

    Comment by erquirk — August 18, 2010 @ 4:07 am - August 18, 2010

  32. I find it hysterical that a “gay patriot” would be quibbling about the semantics (……)

    Indeed! There is no reason to “quibble” over the meaning of “equality” or “privacy” or “justice” or “hate crime” or “good” or “evil” or “morality.” These are clear, precise words with no uncertain concept that buries them in ambiguity. Ask any dictator.

    The “promise” of equality lies in both the preamble statement “…secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity…” and the Declaration of Independence statement “We hold these truths to be self evident, all men are created equal….that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness….”

    See how simple this is when you don’t quibble over semantics?

    “Blessings” of living under liberty is very clear and precise. It means if you have more than I do, I get to take some of yours to even things up. You see, if we are not “equal” then we don’t have balance and harmony in our liberty so I must act on the basis of harmonic purity to restore perfect liberty and stasis. Cool!

    How come only the “men” are created equal? And why just “created” equal, why not assured they will forevermore remain equal?

    What the heck is this “pursuit” business? What if you pursue and don’t achieve? That stinks. Obviously the state has to step in and even things up.

    This is really easy. Even a simpleton can do it.

    Comment by heliotrope — August 18, 2010 @ 10:20 am - August 18, 2010

  33. I’d say ND30 is self loathing, DBD is just a partisan who sees things only through the lens of his self created reality. He looks for fights instead of compromise and values media attention over content. I’ll give the Goproud group credit for getting media attention but I cannot agree with many of their core rationale. Looking at the group by the people it attracts makes me wonder if they really understand themselves yet. Often times gays (including myself) seek attention from society to offset the alienation many of us feel after accepting our lot as gays. I think goproud is little different from the myriad of left leaning gay groups that swallow the democrats promises hook line and sinker. In truth we should play both sides against each other as they work for our money and votes.
    As I try to remind my father the constitution is not a static document nor should we want it to be. We have 240 years of case law adapting and molding our understanding of the Constitution and our law. Lets try to look at it that context instead of saying things like marriage are not rights. Or that equality is not a right now.

    Comment by Tim — August 18, 2010 @ 10:23 am - August 18, 2010

  34. erquirk and Tim, thanks for the morning laugh. And Tim, you made my point, “240 years of case law adapting and molding” doesn’t put equality into the constitution, it just pulls it from the minds of judges. Guess, you must have liked that Plessy decision back in 1896, not to mention Dred Scott.

    And erquirk, the “equal protection” clause offers equal protection of the laws not the promise of equality. There’s a huge difference and anyone with a rudimentary understanding of the circumstances surrounding the enactment of the 14th Amendment should understand it. Members of the Congress passing that Amendment were concerned with people being deprived of their liberty by overzealous legislatures.

    Finally, Tim, to call a equality a right is turn to the entire American experience on its head.

    Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — August 18, 2010 @ 11:50 am - August 18, 2010

  35. Wow, and Tim pops up and proceeds to try to psychoanalyze both NDT and Dan.

    Now I’m not a therapist, but I’d like to point out that if I were, I’d say that Tim thinks that 15 is a great age to start having sex with older men. Of course I’d hate to make such an accusation without any proof, as Tim does above.

    Fortunately I have Tim’s own words.

    Comment by The_Livewire — August 18, 2010 @ 12:22 pm - August 18, 2010

  36. As an unbiased scorer, I’ve got to call this one a unanimous decision for B. Daniel Blatt.

    Maybe it was the “self-loathing” characterization that became the turning point, or maybe just Dan’s intellect, grasp of the issues, and excellent prose.

    Well done, sir.

    Comment by Howard Towt — August 18, 2010 @ 12:30 pm - August 18, 2010

  37. Often times gays (including myself) seek attention from society to offset the alienation many of us feel after accepting our lot as gays.

    So, gays have a serious inferiority complex and those gays who do not “seek attention from society” to offset their inferiority complexes are “self-loathing” gays.

    H-m-m-m-m. Maybe some gays do not have inferiority complexes and do not “seek attention from society.” So, that makes them “self-loathing” gays because, ……. oh, wait. Maybe the gays who “seek attention from society to offset” their sense of alienation are actually the “self-loathing” gays.

    How very confusing. Make two visits to your shrink and call me on Thursday.

    Comment by heliotrope — August 18, 2010 @ 2:58 pm - August 18, 2010

  38. “…nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws…”

    Comment by SPTN58 — August 18, 2010 @ 4:43 pm - August 18, 2010

  39. Um, SPTN58, already referenced that in the post and addressed it there. :-)

    Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — August 18, 2010 @ 5:48 pm - August 18, 2010

  40. lol, OMG.

    You really don’t read the Equal Protection Clause as even implying equality? Wow – as if I needed further proof that right-wingers are almost universally brainwashed…

    Comment by adam — August 18, 2010 @ 8:53 pm - August 18, 2010

  41. adam, please study the debates in the Post-Civil War era over the rationale for the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments. And understand just exactly what they meant by “equal protection” word the word was an adjective not an idea.

    They were concerned with the ideal of liberty as the goal and how to best secure it. That has also been at the heart of the American idea–the notion of equality as abstract goal has been pasted on by judges and politicians over the past 75 years or so, but never enshrined in the constitution.

    Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — August 18, 2010 @ 9:02 pm - August 18, 2010

  42. You really don’t read the Equal Protection Clause as even implying equality? Wow – as if I needed further proof that right-wingers are almost universally brainwashed…

    adam: define “equality.”

    Would you say that you get the same latitude under the Equal Protection Clause that society accords a four year old?

    Left-wingers certainly have a field day with words that denote a concept rather than a definitive state which can be measured.

    Please define “justice” and “privacy” and “reasonable” while you are at it. Thanks.

    I will wait up.

    Comment by heliotrope — August 18, 2010 @ 11:14 pm - August 18, 2010

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.