Cartwright signs as lead signatory to Pelosi's amicus brief to SCOTUS

Op-Ed

Newly elected US Congressman Matt Cartwright, who represents PA District 17, has signed onto an agenda that will forcibly and irrevocably change the meaning of marriage. The instrument of this change is his signature on an amicus, or, “friend of the court,” brief requesting that the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) rule against federal law defining marriage as between a man and a woman per the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).

Interesting to note is that in his recent teleconference he related that he does not vote in a partisan manner or along party lines and denied being a “Pelosi follower.” This, only two weeks after signing onto an amicus brief with the lead signatory being none other than . . . Nancy Pelosi. That document may be viewed here: 212 Members of Congress File Historic Amicus Brief.

The brief is seeking to have the SCOTUS force a redefinition of marriage upon everyone, with prejudice.

If Nancy Pelosi’s and Matt Cartwright’s radical agenda is successful, all states must comply with a new definition of marriage tyrannically dictated by a majority of justices, whose expertise in such matters shirks the line between Church and State. Congressman Cartwright’s radicalism is evidenced by his and his fellow congressmen’s attempt to have undue influence over a suit to be heard by the SCOTUS over California’s Proposition 8—the meaning of marriage as defined by DOMA is the current law of the land and Prop 8 ultimately relies on that meaning.

Congressman Cartwright, along with prior Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and their fellow Democrats, who are not party to this litigation, have volunteered their opinion to the court via this amicus brief to advocate the alteration of the definition of marriage to include same-sex marriage without prejudice.

Also interesting to note is that this past summer we watched as members of the Democratic National Convention split over whether or not to remove “God” from their platform. Convention chairman Antonio Villaraigosa had to have the attendees vote three times, because he could not decipher the nays from the yeas. Is it any wonder, then, how radicals such as Cartwright and Pelosi seem to want us to have to choose between obedience to God or submission to the State? With this action, they are now planting the seeds of religious persecution by a radical government that is increasingly hostile to those who hold their faith dear. Congressman Cartwright, with his signature, has joined the ranks of his fellow Democrats who believe the State is the only true supreme entity.

In addition to all of this, the people of California have spoken in favor of Prop 8, even overturning previous court rulings by means of a referendum ballot. Apparently, Nancy Pelosi and Matt Cartwright believe they are able to circumvent the will of the people.

Representatives Matt Cartwright and Nancy Pelosi need not look to SCOTUS to redefine marriage. They need only look to their own House members who write divisive tax laws that harm the very constituents they purport to represent, tax laws that are creating a rift not only between gay and straight, rich and poor, but now between Christians and non-Christians, and all due to a divisive tax law that allows Congress to pick winners and losers. When looked at openly, these actions are apparent attempts to divide the electorate—all to fulfill a radical agenda.

Had I been elected to Congress, I would have been fighting to replace the current divisive tax law with one that eliminates both the estate and gift taxes, better known collectively as the “death” tax. That superior taxing scheme is known as the Fair Tax.

I suggest to the LGBT community that rather than fighting to redefine marriage, they should demand Congress scrap the current divisive tax code and implement the Fair Tax.

Here’s hoping that come next election, the people will remember the actions of Congressman Cartwright and Congresswoman Pelosi related above, and look to their higher power when casting their votes, rather than vote the party line, a party line that not only seems to write laws that harm the very constituents they claim to represent, but also rejects God at every turn.



0 comments