Tag Archives: Supreme Court

And So It Begins! Montana Man Files For License to Marry TWO Women

Collier and Wives

Nathan Collier [center] and his wife Victoria [left] along with wife to be Christine [right] are moving to legalize their plural marriage based on the recent Supreme Court decision on gay marriage

By Gary P Jackson

A couple of days ago I wrote Congratulations Polygamists, Pederasts, Oedipalists, et al.: Your Case is Made, the Precedent is Set! Call the Wedding Planner! where I predicted we’d soon see any number of deviations from traditional marriage, now that the Supreme Court has declared marriage a “right.”

I included a Politico opinion piece that made a pretty solid case for plural marriage [polygamy] based on the arguments used to convince the Court to grant the new “right” for gays to marry.

This from the Associated Press, via The Blaze:

HELENA, Mont. (AP) — A Montana man has applied for a marriage license so he can legally wed his second wife.

Nathan Collier of Billings said Wednesday that last week’s U.S. Supreme Court decision legalizing gay marriage inspired him to try to force the acceptance of polygamous marriages.

He says he’ll sue the state if his application is rejected.

Collier says Yellowstone County Courthouse officials initially denied the application Tuesday. When he told officials he planned to sue, they said they would consult with the county attorney before giving him a final answer.

Collier married his first wife, Victoria, in 2000. He and his second wife, Christine, had a religious wedding ceremony in 2007 but didn’t sign a marriage license.

The trio recently has appeared on the reality cable television show “Sister Wives.

Collier and Wife to be

Since plural marriage is currently illegal in all 50 states, Collier [left] has only been legally married to his first wife Victoria. He is moving to now legalize his marriage with Christine [right] who he wed in a religious ceremony in 2007

Part of me mourns civilization, the other part says: “Good for him!” If he is denied the right to marry he should sue the living hell out Yellowstone County and everyone involved! The Court has ruled!

The Daily Mail has more:

It’s about marriage equality,’ Collier said Wednesday. ‘You can’t have this without polygamy.

Collier and his second wife were met with confusion when they went to the Yellowstone County court house on Tuesday to fill out the application.

So, are you legally married, you didn’t get divorced?‘ one clerk asked, when he saw that Collier marked ‘not applicable‘ on a question asking the dissolution date of his previous marriage.

Collier responded that he was indeed still married and trying to marry for a second time.

We’ll have to deny that, let me go grab the other supervisor real quick so I can get confirmation but as far as I’m aware you can’t be married to two people at the same time,’ another clerk said.

County clerk officials initially denied Collier’s application, then said they would consult with the county attorney’s office before giving him a final answer, Collier said.

Yellowstone County chief civil litigator Kevin Gillen said he is reviewing Montana’s bigamy laws and expected to send a formal response to Collier by next week.

I think he deserves an answer,’ Gillen said, but added his review is finding that ‘the law simply doesn’t provide for that yet.

All we want is legal legitimacy. We aren’t asking anybody for anything else. We just want to give our marriage and our family the legitimacy that it deserves,’ Nathan Collier said.

In a Facebook post on Wednesday, Nathan Collier said he had yet to hear an answer from the county attorney on their decision to grant or deny the marriage license.

However, he says that he has told through ‘other sources‘ that the attorney general’s office is considering charging him for bigamy.

I knew the risks I faced when I asked the State to grant legal legitimacy to my family, and I accepted those risks.
‘I only ask that if their intent is to lock me in a cage
(and we wonder why they keep asking for more money to expand the jails?!?!?) over my family dynamic, contact me privately and I will walk in your front door. ‘I have no reason to run or hide. Please, don’t kick my door in and shoot my dogs,’ Collier wrote.

Collier goes on to say that he is ‘saddened‘ that his family faces such challenges in the ‘land of the free‘.

You can believe that the entire nation is and will be watching your choices and actions. There is no honor in destroying functional families,’ Collier added.

The Supreme Court’s ruling on Friday made gay marriages legal nationwide. Chief Justice John Roberts said in his dissent that people in polygamous relationships could make the same legal argument that not having the opportunity to marry disrespects and subordinates them.

Collier, 46, said that dissent inspired him. He owns a refrigeration business in Billings and married Victoria, 40, in 2000. He and his second wife, Christine, had a religious wedding ceremony in 2007 but did not sign a marriage license to avoid bigamy charges, he said.

Collier said he is a former Mormon who was excommunicated for polygamy and now belongs to no religious organization. He said he and his wives hid their relationship for years, but became tired of hiding and went public by appearing on the reality cable television show ‘Sister Wives.’

In the episode, the Colliers hosted the show’s stars – the Brown family – at their home in Billings and discussed their polygamist lifestyles. The Colliers and the Browns had never met before.

The three have seven children of their own and from previous relationships.

In an interview with the Examiner, Nathan Collier said he courted both of his wives at the same time.
He says he fell in love with both and couldn’t choose so they decided to start one family together.

Christine and Victoria said they are so happy with their lifestyle that they are thinking of adding another wife to the mix.
When they first started their family, Victoria and Christine lived in separate houses on different sides of town with Nathan splitting his time between the two.

But now they live together all as one, which they say works better.

My second wife Christine, who I’m not legally married to, she’s put up with my crap for a lot of years. She deserves legitimacy,’ he said.

Collier said he sent an email asking the ACLU of Montana to represent him in a possible lawsuit. ACLU legal director Jim Taylor said he has not seen the request.

Taylor said he has no opinion on Collier’s claims, though the Supreme Court decision on gay marriage ‘is about something very different.’

Anne Wilde, a co-founder of the polygamy advocacy organization Principle Voices located in Utah, said Collier’s application is the first she’s heard of in the nation, and that most polygamous families in Utah are not seeking the right to have multiple marriage licenses.

Callier All In The Family

All in the family: Nathan, Victoria and Christine Collier pictured top center, surrounded by their children who they are raising as one family in Billings, Montana

If we want to get serious for a minute, we must acknowledge that plural marriage, polygamy, is far more legit than gay marriage. Polygamy has been around for thousands of years. It’s spoken of in the Bible. In many societies it is still practiced, often times with these marriages being arranged. Gay marriage, on the other hand is a construct of the mid-to late 20th Century and has almost no history.

If we, as a nation are going to allow something, whose concept is younger than I am, it’s going to be hard to deny one that is older than the Bible! Especially when the applicant can successfully claim the same 14th Amendment “equal protection under the law” protections that gays were granted by the Court!

Welcome to the brave new world of “anything goes“!

1 Comment

Filed under In The News, Politics

Congratulations Polygamists, Pederasts, Oedipalists, et al.: Your Case is Made, the Precedent is Set! Call the Wedding Planner!

By Gary P Jackson

In what is certainly the most egregious example of judicial overreach in our nation’s history, the Supreme Court created a “right” that has never before existed. [every state in the USA, and most countries, have put numerous restrictions on who may, or may not marry, and for good reason] By declaring marriage a “right,” The Court opened the door, not only for gay marriage, but for any and all unions that were heretofore unthinkable, and totally unacceptable.

Not since Dred Scott, which essentially said Negroes were not human, but mere property …. farm implements if you will …. and thus, had no constitutional rights whatsoever, and Roe v Wade, which was ACTUALLY about the right to privacy, but was interpreted as creating a “right” to slaughter an innocent child and call it a “choice” [which has led to the slaughter of at least 80 MILLION innocent children, including over 20 MILLION black babies, since 1973] has The Court got it so wrong, and the potential damage to civilized society so great.

As it did in Thursday’s ObamaCare [SCOTUScare?] ruling, The Court has essentially rendered the 9th and 10th Amendments to the Constitution, and the concept of state’s rights, null and void.

Full disclosure before we go any further. While I’m not exactly what you’d call an “enthusiastic supporter” of gay marriage, I have absolutely ZERO problem with allowing gays to marry IF it had been done legally, and with the blessing of the American people, not through judicial fiat and activism. In other words, a constitutional amendment that would forever define marriage.

Look for an upcoming post outlining a constitutional amendment that could, and would, satisfy most Americans and ease their legitimate fears of being persecuted for their religious beliefs, while still allowing gay marriage.

In the headline I mention polygamy, the act of marrying more than one person at the same time, and living in a plural relationship, not to be confused with bigamy, being married to more than one person, usually without the other participants’ knowledge of that fact. [though laws against this may be voided as well] I also mention pedophilia, and incestuous relationships. Many will scoff, but the fact is, the happy-happy, rainbows and unicorns, let’s all sing Kumbaya wording in Justice Kennedy’s majority ruling opens up marriage to include any paring, or combination of parings, one can think up. Wanna marry your pet goat? OK. How about your color TV or your toaster? Sure, why not! [you can thank Frank Zappa and Joe’s Garage for that imagery!]

Don’t laugh, in other countries, run by lunatics, people have been allowed to marry trees, cars, and other random things. Nothing like the government indulging the mentally ill!

And yes, the United States is run by lunatics too. The inmates have taken over the asylum!

Here’s the thing, the arguments used to claim gay marriage was a “right,” based on the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, can be used by ANYONE in a relationship that, until now, has been illegal, or otherwise forbidden by civilized societies.

Don’t laugh! People seem to want to laugh at and ridicule those who talk about “slippery slopes” and the “law of unintended consequences ,” but in most cases, we are usually right on the money. Sometimes it takes years to be proven right, other times we see it almost immediately!

For example …. Friday, while the Court ruling was still sinking in for most people, the left wing website Politico published an opinion piece by Fredrik Deboer entitled: It’s Time to Legalize Polygamy Why group marriage is the next horizon of social liberalism.

Welcome to the exciting new world of the slippery slope. With the Supreme Court’s landmark ruling this Friday legalizing same sex marriage in all 50 states, social liberalism has achieved one of its central goals. A right seemingly unthinkable two decades ago has now been broadly applied to a whole new class of citizens. Following on the rejection of interracial marriage bans in the 20th Century, the Supreme Court decision clearly shows that marriage should be a broadly applicable right—one that forces the government to recognize, as Friday’s decision said, a private couple’s “love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice and family.

The question presents itself: Where does the next advance come? The answer is going to make nearly everyone uncomfortable: Now that we’ve defined that love and devotion and family isn’t driven by gender alone, why should it be limited to just two individuals? The most natural advance next for marriage lies in legalized polygamy—yet many of the same people who pressed for marriage equality for gay couples oppose it.

This is not an abstract issue. In Chief Justice John Roberts’ dissenting opinion, he remarks, “It is striking how much of the majority’s reasoning would apply with equal force to the claim of a fundamental right to plural marriage.” As is often the case with critics of polygamy, he neglects to mention why this is a fate to be feared. Polygamy today stands as a taboo just as strong as same-sex marriage was several decades ago—it’s effectively only discussed as outdated jokes about Utah and Mormons, who banned the practice over 120 years ago.

Yet the moral reasoning behind society’s rejection of polygamy remains just as uncomfortable and legally weak as same-sex marriage opposition was until recently.

That’s one reason why progressives who reject the case for legal polygamy often don’t really appear to have their hearts in it. They seem uncomfortable voicing their objections, clearly unused to being in the position of rejecting the appeals of those who would codify non-traditional relationships in law. They are, without exception, accepting of the right of consenting adults to engage in whatever sexual and romantic relationships they choose, but oppose the formal, legal recognition of those relationships. They’re trapped, I suspect, in prior opposition that they voiced from a standpoint of political pragmatism in order to advance the cause of gay marriage.

In doing so, they do real harm to real people. Marriage is not just a formal codification of informal relationships. It’s also a defensive system designed to protect the interests of people whose material, economic and emotional security depends on the marriage in question. If my liberal friends recognize the legitimacy of free people who choose to form romantic partnerships with multiple partners, how can they deny them the right to the legal protections marriage affords?
Polyamory is a fact. People are living in group relationships today. The question is not whether they will continue on in those relationships. The question is whether we will grant to them the same basic recognition we grant to other adults: that love makes marriage, and that the right to marry is exactly that, a right.

Why the opposition, from those who have no interest in preserving “traditional marriage” or forbidding polyamorous relationships? I think the answer has to do with political momentum, with a kind of ad hoc-rejection of polygamy as necessary political concession. And in time, I think it will change.

The marriage equality movement has been both the best and worst thing that could happen for legally sanctioned polygamy. The best, because that movement has required a sustained and effective assault on “traditional marriage” arguments that reflected no particular point of view other than that marriage should stay the same because it’s always been the same. In particular, the notion that procreation and child-rearing are the natural justification for marriage has been dealt a terminal injury. We don’t, after all, ban marriage for those who can’t conceive, or annul marriages that don’t result in children, or make couples pinkie swear that they’ll have kids not too long after they get married. We have insisted instead that the institution exists to enshrine in law a special kind of long-term commitment, and to extend certain essential logistical and legal benefits to those who make that commitment. And rightly so.

But the marriage equality movement has been curiously hostile to polygamy, and for a particularly unsatisfying reason: short-term political need. Many conservative opponents of marriage equality have made the slippery slope argument, insisting that same-sex marriages would lead inevitably to further redefinition of what marriage is and means. See, for example, Rick Santorum’s infamous “man on dog” comments, in which he equated the desire of two adult men or women to be married with bestiality. Polygamy has frequently been a part of these slippery slope arguments. Typical of such arguments, the reasons why marriage between more than two partners would be destructive were taken as a given. Many proponents of marriage equality, I’m sorry to say, went along with this evidence-free indictment of polygamous matrimony. They choose to side-step the issue by insisting that gay marriage wouldn’t lead to polygamy. That legally sanctioned polygamy was a fate worth fearing went without saying.

To be clear: our lack of legal recognition of group marriages is not the fault of the marriage equality movement. Rather, it’s that the tactics of that movement have made getting to serious discussions of legalized polygamy harder. I say that while recognizing the unprecedented and necessary success of those tactics. I understand the political pragmatism in wanting to hold the line—to not be perceived to be slipping down the slope. To advocate for polygamy during the marriage equality fight may have seemed to confirm the socially conservative narrative, that gay marriage augured a wholesale collapse in traditional values. But times have changed; while work remains to be done, the immediate danger to marriage equality has passed. In 2005, a denial of the right to group marriage stemming from political pragmatism made at least some sense. In 2015, after this ruling, it no longer does.

While important legal and practical questions remain unresolved, with the Supreme Court’s ruling and broad public support, marriage equality is here to stay. Soon, it will be time to turn the attention of social liberalism to the next horizon. Given that many of us have argued, to great effect, that deference to tradition is not a legitimate reason to restrict marriage rights to groups that want them, the next step seems clear. We should turn our efforts towards the legal recognition of marriages between more than two partners. It’s time to legalize polygamy.

***

Conventional arguments against polygamy fall apart with even a little examination. Appeals to traditional marriage, and the notion that child rearing is the only legitimate justification of legal marriage, have now, I hope, been exposed and discarded by all progressive people. What’s left is a series of jerry-rigged arguments that reflect no coherent moral vision of what marriage is for, and which frequently function as criticisms of traditional marriage as well.

This is, sad to say, an incredibly well thought out argument, and one that can be made without the necessity of another court battle. Again, the precedent is set, not only for polygamy, but absolutely ANY relationship and union that has formerly been considered taboo and forbidden. Welcome to the brave new world where court rulings are based on feelings, rather than the Constitution, and common sense!

Let’s visit what Chief Justice Roberts wrote in dissent of the ruling, that strongly warns the ruling opens the door for polygamy: [emphasis mine]

Although the majority randomly inserts the adjective “two” in various places, it offers no reason at all why the two-person element of the core definition of marriage may be preserved while the man-woman element may not. Indeed, from the standpoint of history and tradition, a leap from opposite-sex marriage to same-sex marriage is much greater than one from a two-person union to plural unions, which have deep roots in some cultures around the world. If the majority is willing to take the big leap, it is hard to see how it can say no to the shorter one.

It is striking how much of the majority’s reasoning would apply with equal force to the claim of a fundamental right to plural marriage. If “[t]here is dignity in the bond between two men or two women who seek to marry and in their autonomy to make such profound choices,” ante, at 13, why would there be any less dignity in the bond between three people who, in exercising their autonomy, seek to make the profound choice to marry? If a same-sex couple has the constitutional right to marry because their children would otherwise “suffer the stigma of knowing their families are somehow lesser,” ante, at 15, why wouldn’t the same reasoning apply to a family of three or more persons raising children? If not having the opportunity to marry “serves to disrespect and subordinate” gay and lesbian couples, why wouldn’t the same “imposition of this disability,” ante, at 22, serve to disrespect and subordinate people who find fulfillment in polyamorous relationships? See Bennett, Polyamory: The Next Sexual Revolution? Newsweek, July 28, 2009 (estimating 500,000 polyamorous families in the United States); Li, Married Lesbian “Throuple” Expecting First Child, N. Y. Post, Apr. 23, 2014; Otter, Three May Not Be a Crowd: The Case for a Constitutional Right to Plural Marriage, 64 Emory L. J. 1977 (2015).

I do not mean to equate marriage between same-sex couples with plural marriages in all respects. There may well be relevant differences that compel different legal analysis. But if there are, petitioners have not pointed to any. When asked about a plural marital union at oral argument, petitioners asserted that a State “doesn’t have such an institution.” Tr. of Oral Arg. on Question 2, p. 6. But that is exactly the point: the States at issue here do not have an institution of same-sex marriage, either.

Think this is no big deal?

In September of 2014 a German ethics committee ruled that INCEST is a “fundamental right“: [emphasis mine]

Incest a ‘fundamental right‘, German committee says

Anti-incest laws in Germany could be scrapped after a government-backed group said relationships between brothers and sisters should be legal

Laws banning incest between brothers and sisters in Germany could be scrapped after a government ethics committee said the they were an unacceptable intrusion into the right to sexual self-determination.

Criminal law is not the appropriate means to preserve a social taboo,” the German Ethics Council said in a statement. “The fundamental right of adult siblings to sexual self-determination is to be weighed more heavily than the abstract idea of protection of the family.

Their intervention follows a notorious case in which a brother and sister living as partners in Saxony had four children together. The couple had been raised separately and only met when the brother, identified only as Patrick S, was an adult, and his sister Susan K was 16.

Patrick S was sentenced to more than three years in prison for incest and the couple have since failed in their bid to have the guilty verdict overturned by the European Court of Human Rights.

The family was forced to live apart after the courts ruled that there was a duty to protect their children from the consequences of their relationship.

Two of the couple’s children are disabled, and it is believed that incest carries a higher risk of resulting in children with genetic abnormalities.

But the Ethics Council dismissed that argument, on the basis that other genetically affected couples are not banned from having children.

The Council said it based its recommendation on extensive research, in which it found many incestuous couples are forced to live in secret.

In one case, it found a woman was being blackmailed by her father and ex-husband, who threatened to depive her of access to her children unless she ended a new relationship with her half-brother.

Incest remains illegal in the UK and most European countries, although France abolished its incest laws under Napoleon I and there has been growing debate over the taboo in Germany.

Around two to four per cent of Germans have had “incestuous experiences”, according to an estimate by the Max Planck Institute.

But a spokeswoman for Angela Merkel’s ruling Christian Democrats indicated the government was unlikely to adopt the Ethics Council’s recommendations.

The abolition of the offense of incest between siblings would be the wrong signal,” said Elisabeth Winkelmeier-Becker, legal policy spokeswoman for the party’s group in parliament.

Eliminating the threat of punishment against incestuous acts within families would run counter to the protection of undisturbed development for children.

It’s not speculation that incestuous sexual relationships can lead to disability and abnormalities among children. Not just physical deformities, but mental deformities as well. Inbreeding was once the “in thing” among European royalty. Study up on the Hapsburg family. Aggressive inbreeding among this royal family led to a distinctive deformity of both the lips and jaws of their offspring, that still exist today. Inbreeding has effected the British Royals as well.

Included in the above article are links to these equally disturbing articles:

Marriage between uncle and niece is ruled legal by New York Court
29 Oct 2014

Australian judge says incest may no longer be a taboo

10 Jul 2014

Father wanted over Australia’s worst incest case ‘hiding in UK’
30 Jun 2014

Switzerland considers repealing incest laws
13 Dec 2010

For those of you of the more libertarian bent, who are wondering why such a fuss, study up on the fall of ancient Greece and ancient Rome. Two civilizations that gave the world many great things and concepts, that crashed and burned because of their “if it feels good, do it” attitudes. These two great civilizations were destroyed by liberalism, of the sort America, and civilization, battles today.

Civilized societies have certain rules, norms, and taboos for a reason. These aren’t concepts that are willy-nilly and created on a whim. The need for these rules has been proven valid through thousands of years of human history.

America is the greatest civilization the world has ever known, but I’m afraid it is no match for the evil that is liberalism.

The slope is well greased, and we are about to slip down it at warp speed.

The American Experiment …. it was fun while it lasted.

12 Comments

Filed under In The News, Politics

Mark Levin Tells Megyn Kelly it’s Time for SCOTUS Term Limits

By Gary P Jackson

Mark Levin is still mighty angry over the treacherous decision by the Supreme Court to uphold the ObamaCare legislation, and how it seems that Chief Justice John Roberts allowed political pressure to overrule the Constitution.

As Levin rightly points out, one of the reasons Supreme Court justices are appointed for life, is to take the politics out of it all.We know that the liberal justices ALWAYS follow the party, or political ideology over the Constitution. Sadly, our Chief Justice is also easily swayed by the liberal media. The Court has but one job, and but one guide, the Constitution. If they are no longer going to follow the Supreme Rule of Law, the Constitution, perhaps it’s time for them to go.

Video courtesy SarahNet

15 Comments

Filed under In The News, Politics

Mark Levin on Roberts Decision: Tyranny, A Perversion of the Constitution

Mark Levin let’s it rip while talking with Neil Cavuto. I agree with him 100%. What Chief Justice John Roberts has done, is shred the Constitution. With this ruling he’s told the government that it can do anything it damn well pleases, as long as it’s under the guise of a tax.

Video courtesy of SarahNet.

5 Comments

Filed under In The News, Politics

Home Depot Co-Founder Bernie Marcus Reacts to SCOTUS Ruling

By Gary P Jackson

Appearing on Neil Cavuto’s show, Bernie Marcus reacts to today’s obscene Supreme Court ruling.

Video courtesy SarahNet

5 Comments

Filed under In The News, Politics

Video: Rick Perry Calls SCOTUS Ruling a Stomach Punch to the Economy

By Gary P Jackson

Texas Governor Rick Perry had strong reaction to today’s Supreme Court Ruling.

Sadly, Perry used what was a great interview to shill for David Dewhurst, thus ruining what was an otherwise great interview.

Video courtesy SarahNet.

Leave a comment

Filed under In The News, Politics

Karen Harrington, Allen West, Marco Rubio on SCOTUS Ruling

By Gary P Jackson

The Shark Tank has reactions to the Supreme Court’s disastrous ruling today from Karen Harrington, Allen West, Marco Rubio, and other prominent Florida Republicans:

As expected, the recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling in favor of Obamacare, has outraged millions of Americans, as well as some prominent Republican legislators and politicos. As you can imagine, every Republican politico is chiming in on the SCOTUS decision.

The U.S. Supreme Courts ruling on Obamacare is nothing more than an outrageous misstep by the court that ignores the constitutional parameters that were initially put in place to keep the federal government in check.

As Americans we must help elect conservative minded individuals to the U.S. Congress this fall, that will help in the future effort of defunding and repealing this unconstitutional healthcare law that will further damage our ailing economy

~ Congressional Candidate Karen Harrington

The United States Supreme Court has ruled to uphold the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act by extending the power of the United States Congress to tax Americans’ behavior. This is a sad day for Americans, as they will be taxed to pay for benefits they may not need or want as part of the insurance they are forced to buy. With this decision, Congress has been granted infinite taxation power, and there are no longer any limits on what the federal government can tax its citizens to do.

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act will hit the middle class especially hard, as hundreds of thousands of jobs will be lost as businesses try to avoid the penalties and costs created by the healthcare law. The healthcare law will cost trillions of dollars, raise costs for employers and create huge incentives for them to drop health insurance.

Benjamin Franklin did indeed state, ‘In this world, nothing can be said to be certain, except death and taxes.’ However, Dr. Franklin never envisioned the federal government would use its power of taxation to punish people for not purchasing health care. Today, individual sovereignty in America has been defeated.

~ Congressman Allen West

What’s important to remember is that what the Court rules on is whether something is constitutional or not, not whether it’s a good idea. And while the Court has said that the law is constitutional, it remains a bad idea for our economy, and I hope that in the fall we will have a majority here that will not just repeal this law, but replace it with real solutions that will insure more people and cost a lot less money.

~ U.S. Senator Marco Rubio

Rather weak tea from Rubio, compared to the others, wouldn’t you say? For all of the reactions, click here.

7 Comments

Filed under In The News, Politics

The Molly Pitchers of the Healthcare Reform Battle

by Whitney Pitcher

The Supreme Court’s decision on Obamacare will come down on the 234th anniversary of the Battle of Monmouth, which took place during the Revolutionary War. The Battle of Monmouth  was fought in Monmouth, New Jersey on June 28, 1778. The result of the battle was essentially a draw. However, the battle showed the essentially untrained Americans were able to hold their own with the trained British soldiers. Most famously, perhaps, was that this battle is where the legacy of Molly Pitcher was born. As you can probably tell by my ” pen name”, I’m a big “fan” of Molly Pitcher. I played her in a play in elementary school and have been intrigued by her legacy ever since. For a little bit of background on her, here’s an excerpt from a post a wrote a couple years ago:

One of the earliest prominent woman in American history is Molly Pitcher. Historians have debated whether or not such a woman ever existed or if she was merely a woman of myths–a persona attributed to all women who fought or assisted in the War of Independence in some way. Some historians, however, believe that Molly Pitcher is really Mary Ludwig Hays, wife of John Hays. She enlisted in the Pennsylvania artillery in 1778, 2 years after her husband enlisted . During the heat soaked Battle of Monmouth on June 28, 1778, Mary tirelessly provided water to the fighting soldiers, earning her the nickname Molly Pitcher. When her husband could no longer fight due to heat stroke, Mary (Molly) took his place at the cannon.[As a correction, it was not her husband who fell, but another man] This battle proved to be a strategical victory for the Continental army as it showed that the informal trained Continental army could hold their ground against the British army and was the last major battle in the northern theater. Two places at this battle site have since been deemed “Molly Pitcher Spring”. She would later receive recognition from General George Washington.

Much like the weather we’re seeing throughout the country this week, that day in 1778 was extremely hot as well. Mary Hays was simply doing what she felt she could to refresh the soldiers fighting that day. However, when the need presented itself, she took to engaging in the fight herself–to be a part of the fight for independence and against tyranny.

Fast forward to today. To be sure, there have been both men and women who have fought the fight against the government overreach present in the healthcare reform bill. However, it was women who have taken to engaging to the fight most passionately. Governor Palin, of course, was one of the leading voices against greater government involvement in healthcare during that healthcare reform battle in 2009; it was something she had already fought for as the governor of Alaska. She wrote against the bureaucratization of healthcare. She called for tort reform in healthcare.Of course, this was never discussed by Democrats who receive far more campaign contributions from lawyers than Republicans. She provided testimony in the New York legislature against financially incentivized  “end of life” counseling. Most famously, she spoke out against rationing of healthcare by “death panels“. Two words that send the media and the Left in a tizzy to this day. However, in this “death panels” post, Governor Palin linked a video of another women, Congresswoman Bachmann, who was fighting against the rationing and warped view of bioethics present in the Obama administration:

It wasn’t just politicians who spoke out against this legislation. It was everyday American men and women. They organized Tea Party rallies and made phone calls and sent emails to their representatives. When legislators went home to their districts to have townhall meetings, people let their leaders have it. This video clip from a small business owner in California went viral when she called for government leaders to respect their constituents and implement common sense reforms:

 

We will find out shortly what the Supreme Court rules on the healthcare reform bill. If they rule the entire bill unconstitutional, a victory for the Constitution will be won, and those reform minded conservatives will continue to fight for greater individual freedom and and smaller government. If parts of the bill are ruled constitutional, those women and men who fought for greater freedom and smaller government will continue to do so.  Governor Palin has already re-iterated the call for repeal if the Supreme Court upholds the law. Much like Molly Pitcher did in her day, these women saw a particular role they could play in the battle for freedom, and they did so. Lord willing, in all cases the ultimate victory lies in the Constitution.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Congressman Ben Quayle Talks to Neil Cavuto About SCOTUS Decision

By Gary P Jackson

Congressman Ben Quayle talks about the Supreme Court decision on Arizona’s immigration law.

Video courtesy of SarahNet

6 Comments

Filed under In The News, Politics

Sheriff Joe Arpaio Talks About Supreme Court Decision With Neil Cavuto

By Gary P Jackson

Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio talks to Neil Cavuto about the Supreme Court’s ruling on Arizona’s immigration law.

Video courtesy SarahNet

Leave a comment

Filed under In The News, Politics